Jump to content

Bush - "War President"


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

there are only two realities that are not stated in your post. 1) Iraq was not on the list of state sponsored terrorism - Iran was - syrai was - N Korea was - Sudan was and Afdghanistan was - as well as others. All of them were more of a danger and more of a sponsor of terrorism aand all of them had more connection with alquida. 2) Bush got stong support for this war (even from me) when he lied about saddam attmpting to get yellowcake from niger and that he had a nuke program. When he told us that in the State of the Union Address, he knew it was a lie, and it did push public opinion from not in favor of the war - to very in favor of the war. Fooled me too. I supported it based on this lie (and many other lies) one of the few "liberals" who did. I still support the war in Afghanistan and believe strongly we should increase our troop strength there. I also believe that something (and I do not know exactly what) has to be done in western Pakistan where our true enemy lies, planning against us evry day.

 

 

First of all, Saddam's Iraq was most definitely on the State Dept's list of state sponsored terrorism. You accuse others of lying but yet you engage in the same.

Second of all, you forget (conveniently) that Bush's SOTU Address where he uttered those 16 words (you know what I'm talking about) was months after Congress' war approval. So much for Bush lying us into war. Actually, it was Joe Wilson lying about Iraq NOT seeking yellowcake as the British claimed they did......a report, I might add, that is still supported by British Intelligence and many in the Intelligence community. You, as do most Dem/Libs love to throw around that word "lie", but you show no ability to understand what it means. Bush knew? Sorry if I don't simply take your word for it. I require proof......or at least a well reasoned argument. You provide neither.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Iraqi Security is not yet able to stand on its own in all areas of Iraq, although the situation has improved immensely.

 

Iraqi National Police Force Continues To Expand

 

Top Iraqi Police officials and Coalition military police gathered at the Camp Fiji training facility Feb. 2 to witness 493 new Iraqi Police officers graduate and perform a demonstration.

"This increase in police force will better the peace for the citizens," said Capt. Mohammad, training commander, Iraqi Police's Forward Unit. "I see only good things in our future."

 

Story by Sgt. Daniel D. Blottenberger, 18th MP Brigade Public Affairs Office.

 

The war is over in the sense that the Korean War is over. It will never actually be over. Although I'd love to see a big announcement from the U.S. government. If Bush said something like "Mission Accomplished" again, he'd be skewered by the traitorous media, and a terrorist would blow up something.

It's better to keep our successes quiet and move on to the next problems.

BTW: why are you hoping for defeat?[/[/size]i]

 

 

You keep posting this crap question, even though you know it's a load of childish BS and you've gotten an answer to it mutiple times.

 

Just as if I were dealing with a child, I refuse to repeat myself continuously. You have your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are only two realities that are not stated in your post. 1) Iraq was not on the list of state sponsored terrorism - Iran was - syrai was - N Korea was - Sudan was and Afdghanistan was - as well as others. All of them were more of a danger and more of a sponsor of terrorism aand all of them had more connection with alquida. 2) Bush got stong support for this war (even from me) when he lied about saddam attmpting to get yellowcake from niger and that he had a nuke program. When he told us that in the State of the Union Address, he knew it was a lie, and it did push public opinion from not in favor of the war - to very in favor of the war. Fooled me too. I supported it based on this lie (and many other lies) one of the few "liberals" who did. I still support the war in Afghanistan and believe strongly we should increase our troop strength there. I also believe that something (and I do not know exactly what) has to be done in western Pakistan where our true enemy lies, planning against us evry day.

 

 

Some interesting reading. Warning: It may shake your worldview.

 

 

Case ClosedTHE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQI-NIGER "YELLOWCAKE" NEXUS.

By Christopher Hitchens

http://www.slate.com/id/2146475/

 

 

Wowie ZahawieSORRY EVERYONE, BUT IRAQ DID GO URANIUM SHOPPING IN NIGER.

By Christopher Hitchens

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

 

 

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission

Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep posting this crap question, even though you know it's a load of childish BS and you've gotten an answer to it mutiple times.

 

Just as if I were dealing with a child, I refuse to repeat myself continuously. You have your answer.

 

 

Struck a nerve, have I? Figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep posting this crap question, even though you know it's a load of childish BS and you've gotten an answer to it mutiple times.

 

Just as if I were dealing with a child, I refuse to repeat myself continuously. You have your answer.

 

 

QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE!

*hands on ears* LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraqi Security is not yet able to stand on its own in all areas of Iraq, although the situation has improved immensely.

 

Iraqi National Police Force Continues To Expand

 

Top Iraqi Police officials and Coalition military police gathered at the Camp Fiji training facility Feb. 2 to witness 493 new Iraqi Police officers graduate and perform a demonstration.

"This increase in police force will better the peace for the citizens," said Capt. Mohammad, training commander, Iraqi Police's Forward Unit. "I see only good things in our future."

 

Story by Sgt. Daniel D. Blottenberger, 18th MP Brigade Public Affairs Office.

 

The war is over in the sense that the Korean War is over. It will never actually be over. Although I'd love to see a big announcement from the U.S. government. If Bush said something like "Mission Accomplished" again, he'd be skewered by the traitorous media, and a terrorist would blow up something.

It's better to keep our successes quiet and move on to the next problems.

BTW: why are you hoping for defeat?

 

 

 

the iraqui prime minister (our puppet) has already stated that iraq will not be stable enough to defend itself until around 2020. i'm sure it's more like 2030. so it was a good idea to invade a country who presented no threat to us, and then rebuild it for 20-30 yrs. costing military lives and a couple trillion? i got news for ya, we lost this war the day it started.

(except the bush family, the carlysle group, halliburton, blackwater, titan and caci. they are the big winners. funny how all of their board members have ties to the pentagon. probably just a coincidense.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the iraqui prime minister (our puppet) has already stated that iraq will not be stable enough to defend itself until around 2020. i'm sure it's more like 2030. so it was a good idea to invade a country who presented no threat to us, and then rebuild it for 20-30 yrs. costing military lives and a couple trillion? i got news for ya, we lost this war the day it started.

(except the bush family, the carlysle group, halliburton, blackwater, titan and caci. they are the big winners. funny how all of their board members have ties to the pentagon. probably just a coincidense.)

 

I watched the movie Elizabeth last night. King Philip II of Spain built the Armada, the largest and fiercest navy in the history of the world. He (with the blessings of the Pope) attacked England unprovoked. England was militarily far inferior and no match for Spain. Both he and Queen E. knew it.

 

The Brits managed to burn some of the fleet in the English Channel with a handful of smaller, weaker ships. The Spaniards were eventually defeated.

 

Philip died 10 years later, leaving Spain bankrupt, after having spent all the nation's resources on his now-defunct Navy. Spain never recovered it's position as a dominant force in the world.

 

I couldn't help but thinking about the parallels with what GWB is doing now in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the iraqui prime minister (our puppet) has already stated that iraq will not be stable enough to defend itself until around 2020. i'm sure it's more like 2030. so it was a good idea to invade a country who presented no threat to us, and then rebuild it for 20-30 yrs. costing military lives and a couple trillion? i got news for ya, we lost this war the day it started.

(except the bush family, the carlysle group, halliburton, blackwater, titan and caci. they are the big winners. funny how all of their board members have ties to the pentagon. probably just a coincidense.)

 

The "iraqui" prime minister is most certainly not a puppet of the US. Actually, there is no prime minister. He is called a "premier". Anyway, it is painfully obvious that you are ill-informed and easily mislead. If you have any proof or links to substantiate your laughable opinions, please be sure to share them next time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this what passes for Lib cleverness?????????? Pathetic. Keep trying! ;)

 

You're full of words that, combined, have no meaning.

 

I'm reminded of one of Shakespeare's quotes...you know, the one about the empty vessel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the movie Elizabeth last night. King Philip II of Spain built the Armada, the largest and fiercest navy in the history of the world. He (with the blessings of the Pope) attacked England unprovoked. England was militarily far inferior and no match for Spain. Both he and Queen E. knew it.

 

The Brits managed to burn some of the fleet in the English Channel with a handful of smaller, weaker ships. The Spaniards were eventually defeated.

 

Philip died 10 years later, leaving Spain bankrupt, after having spent all the nation's resources on his now-defunct Navy. Spain never recovered it's position as a dominant force in the world.

 

I couldn't help but thinking about the parallels with what GWB is doing now in Iraq.

 

 

Damn…the Left is DESPERATE to lose this war! Desperate!

If we DON’T lose this war then they and their allies, the MSM, are doomed!

Why? (I hear you ask) Because their proclamations and prognostications of DEFEAT will have been proven W-R-O-N-G! Can’t have that…eh?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're full of words that, combined, have no meaning.

 

I'm reminded of one of Shakespeare's quotes...you know, the one about the empty vessel.

 

 

Full of sound and fury......signifying nothing? Pot.....meet kettle. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "iraqui" prime minister is most certainly not a puppet of the US. Actually, there is no prime minister. He is called a "premier". Anyway, it is painfully obvious that you are ill-informed and easily mislead. If you have any proof or links to substantiate your laughable opinions, please be sure to share them next time.

 

 

sorry, iraqi. other than that you are totally wrong. iraq DOES have a prime minister as well as a priemer. looks like you aren't as smart as you thought. he is qouted as saying iraq will need protection until around 2020. DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP, HOTSHOT. and to say the iraqi gov't isn't the puppet of the USA is laughable. we always go into countries and refrain from influencing their gov't. you are a great student of history. you are not worthy of debate.

 

 

 

now someone tell me, what does "winning in iraq" mean? be specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't help but thinking about the parallels with what GWB is doing now in Iraq.

Yea I can see why,Bush asked The Pope if he could sail to Iraq and attack them for no reason,maybe The Pope and Bush are in it together for oil,or maybe The Pope is behind the 9-11 attacks,they happened on his watch,probably a Rolex,thats why gas is $3.00 a gallon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, iraqi. other than that you are totally wrong. iraq DOES have a prime minister as well as a priemer. looks like you aren't as smart as you thought. he is qouted as saying iraq will need protection until around 2020. DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP, HOTSHOT. and to say the iraqi gov't isn't the puppet of the USA is laughable. we always go into countries and refrain from influencing their gov't. you are a great student of history. you are not worthy of debate.

 

 

 

now someone tell me, what does "winning in iraq" mean? be specific.

 

 

 

 

DIDN'T NEED LINK. JUST GOOGLED IRAQI PRIME MINISTER. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. HIS NAME IS NURI al-MALLIKI. WAS PRIME MINISTER OF IRAQ AS OF YESTERDAY. I ASSUME HE'S STILL THERE. LOOKS LIKE THE IDIOTS ON THE RIGHT DON'T HAVE THEIR FACTS STRAIGHT. WHAT A SHOCKER.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, iraqi. other than that you are totally wrong. iraq DOES have a prime minister as well as a priemer. looks like you aren't as smart as you thought. he is qouted as saying iraq will need protection until around 2020. DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP, HOTSHOT. and to say the iraqi gov't isn't the puppet of the USA is laughable. we always go into countries and refrain from influencing their gov't. you are a great student of history. you are not worthy of debate.

 

 

 

now someone tell me, what does "winning in iraq" mean? be specific.

I think it means clip all the terrorists,the people that support them,fund them and liberate all those Tuskin Raiders so they don't have to wear those masks and hoods when it's hot outside(not right now because Al's Ice Age has caused snow to fall in Iraq for the first time in like 20 years)and restore some democracy in the middle east?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, iraqi. other than that you are totally wrong. iraq DOES have a prime minister as well as a priemer. looks like you aren't as smart as you thought. he is qouted as saying iraq will need protection until around 2020. DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP, HOTSHOT. and to say the iraqi gov't isn't the puppet of the USA is laughable. we always go into countries and refrain from influencing their gov't. you are a great student of history. you are not worthy of debate.

 

 

 

now someone tell me, what does "winning in iraq" mean? be specific.

 

I'm not quite sure what a "priemer" is, but I assume you are talking about Nuri Al-Maliki , the current prime minister of Iraq. To say that he is a US puppet is entirely wrong. You obviously cannot substantiate that. If so.......be my guest. If you can't, then you, my Lib friend, are not worthy of debate.

 

What does winning in Iraq mean? Winning means helping the Iraqi security forces get to the point where they can defend themselves.

 

Now, please answer my question: Why are you so intent on US surrender in Iraq?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it means clip all the terrorists,the people that support them,fund them and liberate all those Tuskin Raiders so they don't have to wear those masks and hoods when it's hot outside(not right now because Al's Ice Age has caused snow to fall in Iraq for the first time in like 20 years)and restore some democracy in the middle east?

 

 

i know this may shock you, but the united states doesn't get to tell other people how to run their country. we certainly try all the time, but it's all related to money. middle east and democracy don't go together. the islam religion and culture do not see men and women as equals. kinda hard to have a democracy there. how bout saudi arabia? they have some of the worst human rights abuses in the world. why don't we establish a democracy there? hmmm. that's a tough one. it couldn't be that some people in this country make money from them, could it? how bout china? can't have a democracy there. how could our businessmen profit from sweat shops if they were a democracy. i guess it's "selective democracy building". and 5th graders know before we went in to iraq, there was no substantial terroristic occupation. this is like talking to a 3rd grader. maybe you should only respond to topics where intelligence is not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Day by day, services improve in Iraq; political systems grow; enemies are killed and captured; the Iraqi security forces improve - that is noted by all and sundry who report from Iraq. That you choose to ignore all the recent news is something that I can't get around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what a "priemer" is, but I assume you are talking about Nuri Al-Maliki , the current prime minister of Iraq. To say that he is a US puppet is entirely wrong. You obviously cannot substantiate that. If so.......be my guest. If you can't, then you, my Lib friend, are not worthy of debate.

 

What does winning in Iraq mean? Winning means helping the Iraqi security forces get to the point where they can defend themselves.

 

Now, please answer my question: Why are you so intent on US surrender in Iraq?

 

 

thanks for quoting my post. you're so stupid you didn't even read the ones before it.

boy, if that's the best you can do for a "win", YOU'RE HURTING. let's stay another 20 yrs.. it' s worth it. i couldn't care less about iraq. are they are our blood brothers now or something? they never asked for help and george used 9/11 as a reason to go in. screw every country in the middle east. they have always hated us and they always will. it's all about money. i think we should go into the sudan, personally. THERE'S been a f'in genocide going on their years. why haven't we gone in? what's in it for us? no oil or resources. let em die. you are clueless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for quoting my post. you're so stupid you didn't even read the ones before it.

boy, if that's the best you can do for a "win", YOU'RE HURTING. let's stay another 20 yrs.. it' s worth it. i couldn't care less about iraq. are they are our blood brothers now or something? they never asked for help and george used 9/11 as a reason to go in. screw every country in the middle east. they have always hated us and they always will. it's all about money. i think we should go into the sudan, personally. THERE'S been a f'in genocide going on their years. why haven't we gone in? what's in it for us? no oil or resources. let em die. you are clueless.

 

 

You must be here for sheer comic relief. Your posts are pure gibberish. Probably because your daily dose of thorazine hasn't kicked in yet. If you are concerned about Darfur, your beef is with the UN and Sudan.

The goal in Iraq has always been a stable democracy that doesn't threaten it's neighbors.

Since that goal is clearly obtainable, I can see why you want to pretend otherwise. Now get back to filling in those potholes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SINCE HE LET 9/11 HAPPEN ON HIS WATCH AND THEN LIED TO INVADE A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, I 'D SAY YES. DON'T FORGET OSAMA IS ALIVE, EVEN THOUGH GEORGE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT HIM. THE BORDER IS A MESS AND REMEMBER WHAT A BANG UP JOB HE DID AFTER KATRINA. THE LIST IS ENDLESS.

 

 

what did he lie about???

 

1) there were WMD's in iraq, most of them got moved to syria and buried but some were found.

2) iraq WAS still working on their nuclear program, the NY Times just LIED to us about them not doing it.

3) al qaeda, and many other terrorists organizations were operating in iraq.

 

so what again did he lie about? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know this may shock you, but the united states doesn't get to tell other people how to run their country. we certainly try all the time, but it's all related to money. middle east and democracy don't go together. the islam religion and culture do not see men and women as equals. kinda hard to have a democracy there. how bout saudi arabia? they have some of the worst human rights abuses in the world. why don't we establish a democracy there? hmmm. that's a tough one. it couldn't be that some people in this country make money from them, could it? how bout china? can't have a democracy there. how could our businessmen profit from sweat shops if they were a democracy. i guess it's "selective democracy building". and 5th graders know before we went in to iraq, there was no substantial terroristic occupation. this is like talking to a 3rd grader. maybe you should only respond to topics where intelligence is not required.

 

 

This may shock you but when a dictator threatens the security of the US and the region, the US certainly does have an interest in "regime change". Ask the Clinton Administration. Kinda hard to have a democracy in the Middle East? Don't look now, junior, but Iraq has already written their own constitution and has held three elections. Elections, I might add, where millions of Iraqi's risked their lives to walk for miles and wait in line for hours. Your sophomoric take on history was cited by those morons who believed democracy was impossible in Japan and Germany. "You know those Orientals.......they don't relate to democracy." Luckily, those idiots were ignored in the '40's and moonbats like yourself are being ignored today, even by the likes of Hillary, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.

Saudi Arabia is hardly a democracy but then again, it hasn't threatened its neighbors, or us. This all kinda throws a curve to your assumptions.......hmmmmmm?

No "substantial terroristic occupation" in Saddam's Iraq? What exactly are you trying to say? Do you believe that if you throw some words together, it will make you sound intelligent? Sorry......it isn't working.

Look, your blustering is quite amusing. But it doesn't make up for your 10th Grade grasp on world history. Take a college class or two. I see those flyers everywhere downtown. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what did he lie about???

 

1) there were WMD's in iraq, most of them got moved to syria and buried but some were found.

2) iraq WAS still working on their nuclear program, the NY Times just LIED to us about them not doing it.

3) al qaeda, and many other terrorists organizations were operating in iraq.

 

so what again did he lie about? :huh:

 

Don't waste your time. The same idiot will post about how he previously listed 4000 separate "lies" that Bush told and he can prove every one. When you ask for even one "lie", the response is always, well, I don't feel like posting the list again.

Pathetic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...