this doesn't sound promising at all.....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ligence_dc
The situation in Iraq is worse then ever and about to erupt into a full scale civil war and the Bush administration is refusing to acknowledge it until after the election. There is no way any elections will take place in Jan and
the Iraq police and army cannot in any way handle the amount of violence
that is going on there. It is a complete joke. The US Army is purposely not squashing any of these really hostile "hot zones" right now, because Bush doesn't want a lot of US casualties mounting up before the election.
He has created a hotbed for anti- US terrorism in Iraq that wasn't there before, so in essense, what have we accomplished here?
-removed Hussein from power
-discovered that Iraq has no WMD's and was no immediate threat to us
-created massive unemployment and killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, who had nothing to do with Sadaam, but are just defending thier country
-generated a hotbed for terroristic, anti-US activity in the middle East
-increased anti-US feelings 10-fold and allienated countries that once were our allies
-spent billions of dollars to fight this war, when our economy and heath care is in the toilet
-increased $$$ in Haliburton's pockets, as they are dominating the reconstruction projects in Iraq.
-wasted $$$, manpower and intellegence that could be concentrating on Al-Queda.
-gave up on finding Bin Laden
Anyone who thinks this was the right thing to do and believes that Bush hasn't decieved in more ways than you know, is really living in another world than I am.
OT: Gloomy Outlook In Iraq
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
-
Slumberland
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:00 am
-
davet010
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3563
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Manchester, England
It's called a large glass of reality.
It has a bitter taste, but you'll feel better for it eventually.
It has a bitter taste, but you'll feel better for it eventually.
"The players come from all over the world, the money from deep underneath the Persian Gulf, but, as another, older City poster campaign put it, this is their city. They may now exist in the global spotlight, but they intend to keep it that way."
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33879
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
I love America. I'm growing to despise the guy running it now.Slumberland wrote:Why do you guys hate America so much?
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Who hates America? I love my country and want the best for it.
Thats why we need to address these issues. Ignoring what's going
on isn't going to help either. I hate being deceived by the govt and
the media. This current Pres. campaign has really made me crazy
with all the smearing done by both sides to the other side instead of focusing on what needs to be done in the future.
Thats why we need to address these issues. Ignoring what's going
on isn't going to help either. I hate being deceived by the govt and
the media. This current Pres. campaign has really made me crazy
with all the smearing done by both sides to the other side instead of focusing on what needs to be done in the future.
Slumberland wrote:Why do you guys hate America so much?
-
davet010
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3563
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Manchester, England
There's a distinction to be made...
I don't hate Americans
I do however have a severe antipathetic reaction to your current administration, and hope that if they are reelected and decide to go for Iran as their next stunt, that Tony Blair invites Bush to insert the phone up his own anus rather than drag us into another adventure with him.
I don't hate Americans
I do however have a severe antipathetic reaction to your current administration, and hope that if they are reelected and decide to go for Iran as their next stunt, that Tony Blair invites Bush to insert the phone up his own anus rather than drag us into another adventure with him.
"The players come from all over the world, the money from deep underneath the Persian Gulf, but, as another, older City poster campaign put it, this is their city. They may now exist in the global spotlight, but they intend to keep it that way."
Yeah Europeans (including the Brits whose govt. supported Bush's war) don't like Bush but have no problem against Americans. However, if Americans elect Bush (this time for real, although both parties are gearing up for a possible legal challenges to election results), Europeans may have to at least question Americans' intelligence.davet010 wrote:There's a distinction to be made...
I don't hate Americans
I do however have a severe antipathetic reaction to your current administration, and hope that if they are reelected and decide to go for Iran as their next stunt, that Tony Blair invites Bush to insert the phone up his own anus rather than drag us into another adventure with him.
Then again, Blair is really in no danger of losing when he stands for elections is he? Howard is Australia is also suppose to have a good chance to win.
Don't you Europeans know that the coalition is fighting the terrorists there instead of here? Bush had a plan after all!
it's scary how liberal most of the people are on this board. I guess yall are buying all the constant liberal media bias and hate any thing that bush is or does.
First, I would like to point out errors in the uninformed rant that started this post.
"our economy is terrible".....5.4% unemployment, 4% GDP growth, higher std of living by far anywhere in the world. Not bad for overcoming a bubble economy and 9/11.
"killing massive innocent iraqis who had nothing to do with saddam"....true most have nothing to do with sadam, but these innocents also take enjoyment thru wanton violence, car bombs, beheadings, and other inhuman radical islamic crap.
As for halliburton lining their pockets, haliburton stock has been down, profitabilty of these contracts are much lower than their other businesses, they are one of the only companies to be able to rebuild oil refineries, and they are now going to drop future contracts. Sounds like you are drinking the liberal media rhetoric.
Hey, the war maybe a mistake. Who knows. Only time will tell. The reason it may be a mistake is we didn't do it right and we are letting the crazy radicals go nuts. Now we all now why saddam was a brutal dictator. He had to be to keep these nutjobs in control. I give bush credit for doing something that was not politically easy and taking a stand (the opposite of Kerry). I also respect a president who stands for being strong in the obvious face of WWIII. If you haven't noticed, radical islam wants the destruction of anything that doesn't believe their way. Going into Iraq was not about the wmd's silly boys, it was a gutsy call to try and get a foothold in the part of the world that is living for our destruction. They only attacked Iraq (and not Iran) b/c it was more politically correct (that is everybody hated sadam and he was breaking all the rules). The only problem with this pro-active strategy of trying to do something about the war against the West is we are too hamstrung by the media and the rest of the liberal world (united terrorist nations, france, etc) to really be aggressive and effective.
Bush isn't anything marvelous. He is too liberal (with his bloated spending and medicare proposals) and wimps out a lot (letting the abu ghraib crap stop him from being tough on getting AL sadr). Of course the worse thing would be to vote a quasi socialist who would be weak on everything, take the money from the producers, and kill the economy.
I know you guys will love to rip into all of this, so let's hear it. Oh and please tell me why Kerry would be better than this Bush guy you hate so much.
First, I would like to point out errors in the uninformed rant that started this post.
"our economy is terrible".....5.4% unemployment, 4% GDP growth, higher std of living by far anywhere in the world. Not bad for overcoming a bubble economy and 9/11.
"killing massive innocent iraqis who had nothing to do with saddam"....true most have nothing to do with sadam, but these innocents also take enjoyment thru wanton violence, car bombs, beheadings, and other inhuman radical islamic crap.
As for halliburton lining their pockets, haliburton stock has been down, profitabilty of these contracts are much lower than their other businesses, they are one of the only companies to be able to rebuild oil refineries, and they are now going to drop future contracts. Sounds like you are drinking the liberal media rhetoric.
Hey, the war maybe a mistake. Who knows. Only time will tell. The reason it may be a mistake is we didn't do it right and we are letting the crazy radicals go nuts. Now we all now why saddam was a brutal dictator. He had to be to keep these nutjobs in control. I give bush credit for doing something that was not politically easy and taking a stand (the opposite of Kerry). I also respect a president who stands for being strong in the obvious face of WWIII. If you haven't noticed, radical islam wants the destruction of anything that doesn't believe their way. Going into Iraq was not about the wmd's silly boys, it was a gutsy call to try and get a foothold in the part of the world that is living for our destruction. They only attacked Iraq (and not Iran) b/c it was more politically correct (that is everybody hated sadam and he was breaking all the rules). The only problem with this pro-active strategy of trying to do something about the war against the West is we are too hamstrung by the media and the rest of the liberal world (united terrorist nations, france, etc) to really be aggressive and effective.
Bush isn't anything marvelous. He is too liberal (with his bloated spending and medicare proposals) and wimps out a lot (letting the abu ghraib crap stop him from being tough on getting AL sadr). Of course the worse thing would be to vote a quasi socialist who would be weak on everything, take the money from the producers, and kill the economy.
I know you guys will love to rip into all of this, so let's hear it. Oh and please tell me why Kerry would be better than this Bush guy you hate so much.
the mistake is that we "didn't do it right"???
Isn't that a mistake in itself? That's like saying
"I got it wrong because I didn't do the right thing"
Sounds like one of Dubya's brilliant quotes.
>>>>>Hey, the war maybe a mistake. Who knows. Only time will tell. The reason it may be a mistake is we didn't do it right and we are letting the crazy radicals go nuts.
Isn't that a mistake in itself? That's like saying
"I got it wrong because I didn't do the right thing"
Sounds like one of Dubya's brilliant quotes.
>>>>>Hey, the war maybe a mistake. Who knows. Only time will tell. The reason it may be a mistake is we didn't do it right and we are letting the crazy radicals go nuts.
“it's scary how liberal most of the people are on this board. I guess yall are buying all the constant liberal media bias and hate any thing that bush is or does”
If you are laboring under the belief that there is a liberal media bias, then you are so hook line and sinker gone that none of what follows should be terribly surprising.
“true most have nothing to do with sadam, but these innocents also take enjoyment thru wanton violence, car bombs, beheadings, and other inhuman radical islamic crap.”
Are you implying that we don’t take enjoyment in the wanton violence that was “Shock and Awe?” Or did you miss the media parade?
“As for halliburton lining their pockets, haliburton stock has been down, profitabilty of these contracts are much lower than their other businesses, they are one of the only companies to be able to rebuild oil refineries, and they are now going to drop future contracts. Sounds like you are drinking the liberal media rhetoric.”
If it was liberal media rhetoric, Halliburton would hardly be dropping their future contracts.
“Hey, the war maybe a mistake. Who knows. Only time will tell.”
There was a great deal of evidence suggesting that the war was a mistake before it started, only it didn’t get any play from that liberal media because they were too busy wrapping themselves in the flag and cheering on the troops.
“The reason it may be a mistake is we didn't do it right and we are letting the crazy radicals go nuts. Now we all now why saddam was a brutal dictator. He had to be to keep these nutjobs in control. I give bush credit for doing something that was not politically easy and taking a stand (the opposite of Kerry).”
Living in fantasyland is not the same thing as taking a stand. If you think that simply insulating yourself from any information that disputes your worldview and trumping up information that suits your worldview is a virtue, then you should admire Adolph Hitler’s ability to continually convince himself that there was a worldwide Jewish conspiracy keeping the German state down. It may have been ludicrous, but give the man credit- he took a stand.
“I also respect a president who stands for being strong in the obvious face of WWIII. If you haven't noticed, radical islam wants the destruction of anything that doesn't believe their way. Going into Iraq was not about the wmd's silly boys, it was a gutsy call to try and get a foothold in the part of the world that is living for our destruction. They only attacked Iraq (and not Iran) b/c it was more politically correct (that is everybody hated sadam and he was breaking all the rules). The only problem with this pro-active strategy of trying to do something about the war against the West is we are too hamstrung by the media and the rest of the liberal world (united terrorist nations, france, etc) to really be aggressive and effective.”
Oh yes, effective and aggressive. Nothing can be more effective and aggressive than finding people who don’t like you who are in no position to do anything about it and then putting them in a position to do it. You’ll notice that no Americans are being kidnapped and beheaded in Iowa. No soldiers are being blown up at checkpoints in Georgia. If taking an enemy that had no ability to project power whatsoever and making it easier for them to kill Americans qualifies as “aggressive and effective,” then that must be so.
If you are laboring under the belief that there is a liberal media bias, then you are so hook line and sinker gone that none of what follows should be terribly surprising.
“true most have nothing to do with sadam, but these innocents also take enjoyment thru wanton violence, car bombs, beheadings, and other inhuman radical islamic crap.”
Are you implying that we don’t take enjoyment in the wanton violence that was “Shock and Awe?” Or did you miss the media parade?
“As for halliburton lining their pockets, haliburton stock has been down, profitabilty of these contracts are much lower than their other businesses, they are one of the only companies to be able to rebuild oil refineries, and they are now going to drop future contracts. Sounds like you are drinking the liberal media rhetoric.”
If it was liberal media rhetoric, Halliburton would hardly be dropping their future contracts.
“Hey, the war maybe a mistake. Who knows. Only time will tell.”
There was a great deal of evidence suggesting that the war was a mistake before it started, only it didn’t get any play from that liberal media because they were too busy wrapping themselves in the flag and cheering on the troops.
“The reason it may be a mistake is we didn't do it right and we are letting the crazy radicals go nuts. Now we all now why saddam was a brutal dictator. He had to be to keep these nutjobs in control. I give bush credit for doing something that was not politically easy and taking a stand (the opposite of Kerry).”
Living in fantasyland is not the same thing as taking a stand. If you think that simply insulating yourself from any information that disputes your worldview and trumping up information that suits your worldview is a virtue, then you should admire Adolph Hitler’s ability to continually convince himself that there was a worldwide Jewish conspiracy keeping the German state down. It may have been ludicrous, but give the man credit- he took a stand.
“I also respect a president who stands for being strong in the obvious face of WWIII. If you haven't noticed, radical islam wants the destruction of anything that doesn't believe their way. Going into Iraq was not about the wmd's silly boys, it was a gutsy call to try and get a foothold in the part of the world that is living for our destruction. They only attacked Iraq (and not Iran) b/c it was more politically correct (that is everybody hated sadam and he was breaking all the rules). The only problem with this pro-active strategy of trying to do something about the war against the West is we are too hamstrung by the media and the rest of the liberal world (united terrorist nations, france, etc) to really be aggressive and effective.”
Oh yes, effective and aggressive. Nothing can be more effective and aggressive than finding people who don’t like you who are in no position to do anything about it and then putting them in a position to do it. You’ll notice that no Americans are being kidnapped and beheaded in Iowa. No soldiers are being blown up at checkpoints in Georgia. If taking an enemy that had no ability to project power whatsoever and making it easier for them to kill Americans qualifies as “aggressive and effective,” then that must be so.
You know I bet Jackdog and others who were there beg to differ with the standard liberal rant going on here (wonder where these ranters were when Clinton got us in to Bosnia, btw? Kosovo? Somalia?) Funny whenever he's around they go silent. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Dan Rather’s Forgery Fit
by L. Brent Bozell III
September 15, 2004
CBS News and anchorman Dan Rather have entered the journalistic equivalent of one of Dante’s circles of Hell, forced to live forever with a scandal they created. With their Texas Air National Guard forgeries, they now live in a neighborhood of national media embarrassments. Faked Food Lion resumes. Staged GM pickup truck explosions. Janet Cooke’s profile of Jimmy the eight-year-old coke addict. Jayson Blair’s phony travelogues from "West Virginia."
Watergate was a scandal Mr. Rather thoroughly enjoyed, since he built his career on ripping into Richard Nixon. Now Rather is Nixon, a bitter, vengeful man who allowed his friends to use dirty tricks against his political opponents and when caught, can only deny, deny, deny and bluster about the evil intentions of his enemies.
To borrow lingo from John Kerry, Dan Rather has been reckless, arrogant, and ideologically blind in his pursuit of Moby Bush. When it became obvious that Rather and "60 Minutes" had passed off bad forgeries – and let’s assume Rather was an irresponsible dupe, not an active participant – in an attempt to fill in the blanks of President Bush’s 1972-73 Air National Guard service, the smart move would have been to come clean, apologize, and clear up the mess. Sure, it would have been humiliating for Rather and CBS – but only for a day. Thereafter CBS would have reaped the rewards. "At CBS, our focus is the truth," could have been their new rallying (and marketing) cry.
But no. Rather continues to stand by a disaster. As CNSNews.com first reported, and others have repeated, nearly every independent expert says CBS’s "memos," supposedly from Bush’s commander Jerry Killian, most assuredly were produced by a modern word processor, not a 1970s typewriter. Killian’s widow and son testified that the idea he’d written these memos was preposterous. The widow said he didn’t type and didn’t keep files.
The son, also a National Guard officer, said no Guard officer in his "right mind" would write such a memo. The son was interviewed by CBS. CBS chose not in include him in the piece. The son recommended CBS talk directly to Lt. Bush’s roommate. The CBS producer dismissed this witness as a Bush supporter.
Every new story brought more damning detail. The Dallas Morning News reported the commander who supposedly was blamed for pressuring a subordinate to "sugar coat" Bush’s record had retired 18 months before he was said to have applied such pressure. The Los Angeles Times found Gen. Bobby Hodges, who CBS used to vouch for their documents, and he said CBS only described documents over the phone that he presumed were hand-written. When he saw the documents, he said they were forgeries. Marcel Matley, the lead expert Rather put forward as an authenticator of these memos, came forward and said "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," since they are weak copies, not original documents.
The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it. The Wednesday night story imploded on Thursday, and by Friday night, Rather offered a six-minute response from his bunker on the "CBS Evening News." The aging anchor blustered on and on about all the questions George W. Bush urgently needs to answer. He ignored most of the substantive charges (including any mention of the Killian family) and painted CBS’s critics as a vast right-wing conspiracy.
"Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people, including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story," Rather complained. On Monday night, Rather tried the same rinse-and-repeat strategy, and it only looked sillier.
The responses of CBS flacks in print were even more comical. When confronted with the fact that their first line of defense, Gen. Hodges, found forgery, a spokeswoman told reporters, "We believed Gen. Hodges the first time we spoke to him." When it became apparent that the superior officer Killian was supposedly addressing, Buck Staudt, had retired 18 months before the memo, CBS proclaimed Staudt was a "mythic figure" in the Guard. You send official memos to "mythic figures"? When confronted with Mr. Matley’s retrenchments, CBS flack Sandy Genelius declared, "In the end, the gist is that it’s inconclusive." No, it’s not. But even if it were, are these the ethical standards of CBS?
The ultimate excuse came from Rather himself, insisting his critics have to prove him wrong: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill." Mr. Rather, you have it completely backward. The responsibility is yours to get it right in the first place
This same network had doubts about over 200 vietnam vets claims about Kerry. The one living in fantasyland is you.
If you're under the impression the media is balanced then you're too far gone to help. In just the last couple of weeks the AP puts out a phoney negative story about Bush and then CBS runs with documents they were told beforehand were probably fake............f you are laboring under the belief that there is a liberal media bias, then you are so hook line and sinker gone that none of what follows should be terribly surprising.
Dan Rather’s Forgery Fit
by L. Brent Bozell III
September 15, 2004
CBS News and anchorman Dan Rather have entered the journalistic equivalent of one of Dante’s circles of Hell, forced to live forever with a scandal they created. With their Texas Air National Guard forgeries, they now live in a neighborhood of national media embarrassments. Faked Food Lion resumes. Staged GM pickup truck explosions. Janet Cooke’s profile of Jimmy the eight-year-old coke addict. Jayson Blair’s phony travelogues from "West Virginia."
Watergate was a scandal Mr. Rather thoroughly enjoyed, since he built his career on ripping into Richard Nixon. Now Rather is Nixon, a bitter, vengeful man who allowed his friends to use dirty tricks against his political opponents and when caught, can only deny, deny, deny and bluster about the evil intentions of his enemies.
To borrow lingo from John Kerry, Dan Rather has been reckless, arrogant, and ideologically blind in his pursuit of Moby Bush. When it became obvious that Rather and "60 Minutes" had passed off bad forgeries – and let’s assume Rather was an irresponsible dupe, not an active participant – in an attempt to fill in the blanks of President Bush’s 1972-73 Air National Guard service, the smart move would have been to come clean, apologize, and clear up the mess. Sure, it would have been humiliating for Rather and CBS – but only for a day. Thereafter CBS would have reaped the rewards. "At CBS, our focus is the truth," could have been their new rallying (and marketing) cry.
But no. Rather continues to stand by a disaster. As CNSNews.com first reported, and others have repeated, nearly every independent expert says CBS’s "memos," supposedly from Bush’s commander Jerry Killian, most assuredly were produced by a modern word processor, not a 1970s typewriter. Killian’s widow and son testified that the idea he’d written these memos was preposterous. The widow said he didn’t type and didn’t keep files.
The son, also a National Guard officer, said no Guard officer in his "right mind" would write such a memo. The son was interviewed by CBS. CBS chose not in include him in the piece. The son recommended CBS talk directly to Lt. Bush’s roommate. The CBS producer dismissed this witness as a Bush supporter.
Every new story brought more damning detail. The Dallas Morning News reported the commander who supposedly was blamed for pressuring a subordinate to "sugar coat" Bush’s record had retired 18 months before he was said to have applied such pressure. The Los Angeles Times found Gen. Bobby Hodges, who CBS used to vouch for their documents, and he said CBS only described documents over the phone that he presumed were hand-written. When he saw the documents, he said they were forgeries. Marcel Matley, the lead expert Rather put forward as an authenticator of these memos, came forward and said "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," since they are weak copies, not original documents.
The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it. The Wednesday night story imploded on Thursday, and by Friday night, Rather offered a six-minute response from his bunker on the "CBS Evening News." The aging anchor blustered on and on about all the questions George W. Bush urgently needs to answer. He ignored most of the substantive charges (including any mention of the Killian family) and painted CBS’s critics as a vast right-wing conspiracy.
"Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people, including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story," Rather complained. On Monday night, Rather tried the same rinse-and-repeat strategy, and it only looked sillier.
The responses of CBS flacks in print were even more comical. When confronted with the fact that their first line of defense, Gen. Hodges, found forgery, a spokeswoman told reporters, "We believed Gen. Hodges the first time we spoke to him." When it became apparent that the superior officer Killian was supposedly addressing, Buck Staudt, had retired 18 months before the memo, CBS proclaimed Staudt was a "mythic figure" in the Guard. You send official memos to "mythic figures"? When confronted with Mr. Matley’s retrenchments, CBS flack Sandy Genelius declared, "In the end, the gist is that it’s inconclusive." No, it’s not. But even if it were, are these the ethical standards of CBS?
The ultimate excuse came from Rather himself, insisting his critics have to prove him wrong: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill." Mr. Rather, you have it completely backward. The responsibility is yours to get it right in the first place
This same network had doubts about over 200 vietnam vets claims about Kerry. The one living in fantasyland is you.
It's not paradise that's for sure. But I bet the people who were being raped, tortured, murdered, starved to death, and gassed before we got there have an opinion that isn't as harsh. Let's not also forget the Al Queda membership drive has fallen a little short this summer and alot of their high ranking officers are shall we say "out of commision"Still dont change the fact that Iraq is a mess.
Yeah there are some positives.....But people can find positives in any situations.blueduke wrote:It's not paradise that's for sure. But I bet the people who were being raped, tortured, murdered, starved to death, and gassed before we got there have an opinion that isn't as harsh. Let's not also forget the Al Queda membership drive has fallen a little short this summer and alot of their high ranking officers are shall we say "out of commision"Still dont change the fact that Iraq is a mess.
Couldnt the whole thing have been handled better from the beginning??
People are dying everyday.
It looks like chaos when ever I get the urge to watch the news.
ABSOLUTELY. I prefer the Reagan Way. Strike with no warning and hit the house of the guy most responsible the hardest. Hindsight is what it is though. I understand people's opposition to this. I really do. But I wished they wouldn't be so vocal and outspoken until our kids are home. They're just giving the nutjobs a reason to "if we can hang on just a little longer..........."Yeah there are some positives.....But people can find positives in any situations.
Couldnt the whole thing have been handled better from the beginning??
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33879
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
>>>Oh and please tell me why Kerry would be better than this Bush guy you hate so much.<<<
He wouldn't be any better. Kerry is a waffling joke, or his advisers, desperate to find traction for his slipping campaign, are spinning him into becoming a waffling joke.
But if you have about 10 minutes, I can tell you why Michael Badnarik would be much better ...
Take care,
PK
He wouldn't be any better. Kerry is a waffling joke, or his advisers, desperate to find traction for his slipping campaign, are spinning him into becoming a waffling joke.
But if you have about 10 minutes, I can tell you why Michael Badnarik would be much better ...
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33879
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
>>>Let's not also forget the Al Queda membership drive has fallen a little short this summer and alot of their high ranking officers are shall we say "out of commision"<<<
Right, and the guy who was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and is the mastermind behind all current Al Queda activity is still on the loose.
Yet according to Bush on the aircraft carrier in May 2003, it's "Mission Accomplished."
And I also love the people who say America is safer today than it was before 9/11. How do you know? America went eight years -- from the WTC bombing in 1993 until 9/11/2001 -- without being attacked on its home soil by foreign terrorists under the so-called lackadaisical anti-terror policies of the Clinton Adminstration. So we've gone three years without an attack on the U.S., and now we're Fortress America because Bush, Ridge and Ashcroft say so?
If anything, I feel less safe because our military intervention in the Middle East has fomented even more hatred of the U.S. in that region, if possible. Al Queda and all terror groups in the Middle East sure don't need to hold recruitment and fund-raising drives annually like public radio.
You know, there are about 1,000 Americans who are safer now than three years ago -- the American military personnel who bravely gave their lives in this conflict.
P.S. to Anchester and Blueduke: I'm a libertarian, not a liberal. There's a big difference -- look it up.
Take care,
PK
Right, and the guy who was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and is the mastermind behind all current Al Queda activity is still on the loose.
Yet according to Bush on the aircraft carrier in May 2003, it's "Mission Accomplished."
And I also love the people who say America is safer today than it was before 9/11. How do you know? America went eight years -- from the WTC bombing in 1993 until 9/11/2001 -- without being attacked on its home soil by foreign terrorists under the so-called lackadaisical anti-terror policies of the Clinton Adminstration. So we've gone three years without an attack on the U.S., and now we're Fortress America because Bush, Ridge and Ashcroft say so?
If anything, I feel less safe because our military intervention in the Middle East has fomented even more hatred of the U.S. in that region, if possible. Al Queda and all terror groups in the Middle East sure don't need to hold recruitment and fund-raising drives annually like public radio.
You know, there are about 1,000 Americans who are safer now than three years ago -- the American military personnel who bravely gave their lives in this conflict.
P.S. to Anchester and Blueduke: I'm a libertarian, not a liberal. There's a big difference -- look it up.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Nobody knows if Kerry would do better. He could be just as bad or worse.
But we know what Bush has done.
Of course, there are people who are going to believe he'll be worse because they want Bush again, not because they can foretell what's going to happen should Kerry win.
If his supporters are saying the other guy will be worse, that's not saying much about Bush is it? Instead of saying how great Bush has been, they can only say, "Well Kerry would be worse." They are in effect admitting Bush's record is poor.
But we know what Bush has done.
Of course, there are people who are going to believe he'll be worse because they want Bush again, not because they can foretell what's going to happen should Kerry win.
If his supporters are saying the other guy will be worse, that's not saying much about Bush is it? Instead of saying how great Bush has been, they can only say, "Well Kerry would be worse." They are in effect admitting Bush's record is poor.
Clinton could have had him three times but wouldn't take him. They sure as hell didn't hide b/c they were afraid of Bill. oh and thanks to Clinton China has our nuclear secrets. "Lackadasical"? No. Criminal? Yes. Btw, what the hell do you expect Ashcroft or anyone else to say? That we're sitting ducks (btw, I also agree we are not "safer")? Those people were going to hate us no matter what we did. 3,000 innocent people are dead but let's just not do anything about it, okay? The terrorist might get mad if we do. And if you say there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda you didn't pay attention to the 9/11 report. Sure they weere not the most responsible of the lot-----far from it. But one nutjob at a time, okay? While I'm at it just when did Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia attack us?And I also love the people who say America is safer today than it was before 9/11. How do you know? America went eight years -- from the WTC bombing in 1993 until 9/11/2001 -- without being attacked on its home soil by foreign terrorists under the so-called lackadaisical anti-terror policies of the Clinton Adminstration. So we've gone three years without an attack on the U.S., and now we're Fortress America because Bush, Ridge and Ashcroft say so?