Bush has failed to answer for Sept. 11 - moved

[gabosaurus]

On Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by a foreign terrorist organization. Dubya and his cronies talked tough at the time, but have since proceeded to do nothing. Osama bin Laden is still out there. And he is still talking trash and threatening our country, among others.
How did Dubya respond to bin Laden's brazen attacks? By invading a country that had nothing to do with them! Bush sent a token force of 10,000 into Afghanistan, then launched 110,000 into Iraq. To depose Saddam Hussein, who was obviously a more important target than bin Laden.
U.S. Intelligence knee where bin Laden was -- hiding on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We didn't force the search. Nor did we threaten Pakistan with a massive show of force should they not give him up.
The Bushies also cowered away from confronting the Saudis. We knew they harbored the terror groups responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. We also knew that they financed the operation.
So why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Or at least threaten them? Obviously because Bandar Bush is in tight with the House of Saud. It made more political sense to pick on Iraq.
This is the legacy of Sept. 11 -- that Bush failed the American people. Bush is a disgrace to every person who died in the attack, for he has failed to avenge their deaths. Instead, he used the deaths of 3,000 to further his own personal gains.
These are the FACTS. I hope no one is stupid enough to pass this off as a mere "conspiracy theory." Since it is obviously not.

[manu1959]

Bush invaded afganistan as a response to 911.....

bush invaded iraq as the terms of the cease fire of gulf I were violated....

tell me of your great Saviour's response to.... WTC I.....somalia....the uss cole...the us embassy bombings....

[Gunny]

On Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by a foreign terrorist organization. Dubya and his cronies talked tough at the time, but have since proceeded to do nothing. Osama bin Laden is still out there. And he is still talking trash and threatening our country, among others.
How did Dubya respond to bin Laden's brazen attacks? By invading a country that had nothing to do with them! Bush sent a token force of 10,000 into Afghanistan, then launched 110,000 into Iraq. To depose Saddam Hussein, who was obviously a more important target than bin Laden.
U.S. Intelligence knee where bin Laden was -- hiding on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We didn't force the search. Nor did we threaten Pakistan with a massive show of force should they not give him up.
The Bushies also cowered away from confronting the Saudis. We knew they harbored the terror groups responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. We also knew that they financed the operation.
So why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Or at least threaten them? Obviously because Bandar Bush is in tight with the House of Saud. It made more political sense to pick on Iraq.
This is the legacy of Sept. 11 -- that Bush failed the American people. Bush is a disgrace to every person who died in the attack, for he has failed to avenge their deaths. Instead, he used the deaths of 3,000 to further his own personal gains.
These are the FACTS. I hope no one is stupid enough to pass this off as a mere "conspiracy theory." Since it is obviously not.

President Bush has nothing to answer for. We invaded Afghanistan for 9/11. Apparently only YOU LIBS are under any kind of impression we invaded Iraq as a result of 9/11. Just another attempted distortion of the truth to support political hatred and bullshit accusations.

[stephanie]

Get a grip.....

President Bush is trying to find Bin Laden, in the same way that President Clinton was after he bombed the world trade centers in 93..

President Bush went into Iraq, instead of just lobbing a few missiles at Iraq, like President Clinton did...

President Clinton sent our military into foreign countries, and they were killed there..did we hear a peep from the left then???
You all should get off your high horse, in thinking that President Bush has done anything different, than your alls beloved President Clinton...

But of course we know...if you all admitted the similarities between Clinton and Bush in these matters, then you wouldn't be able to have that rabid hatred to spew...

You all should seek some help...
All that hating could put you in an early grave...:poke:

[Gunny]

Get a grip.....

President Bush is trying to find Bin Laden, in the same way that President Clinton was after he bombed the world trade centers in 93..

President Bush went into Iraq, instead of just lobbing a few missiles at Iraq, like President Clinton did...

President Clinton sent our military into foreign countries, and they were killed there..did we hear a peep from the left then???
You all should get off your high horse, in thinking that President Bush has done anything different, than your alls beloved President Clinton...

But of course we know...if you all admitted the similarities between Clinton and Bush in these matters, then you wouldn't be able to have that rabid hatred to spew...

You all should seek some help...
All that hating could put you in an early grave...:poke:

ANYBODY that would vote for Hillary in 2008 has to be not quite right in the head.:cuckoo:

[waterrescuedude2000]

On Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by a foreign terrorist organization. Dubya and his cronies talked tough at the time, but have since proceeded to do nothing. Osama bin Laden is still out there. And he is still talking trash and threatening our country, among others.
How did Dubya respond to bin Laden's brazen attacks? By invading a country that had nothing to do with them! Bush sent a token force of 10,000 into Afghanistan, then launched 110,000 into Iraq. To depose Saddam Hussein, who was obviously a more important target than bin Laden.
U.S. Intelligence knee where bin Laden was -- hiding on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We didn't force the search. Nor did we threaten Pakistan with a massive show of force should they not give him up.
The Bushies also cowered away from confronting the Saudis. We knew they harbored the terror groups responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. We also knew that they financed the operation.
So why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Or at least threaten them? Obviously because Bandar Bush is in tight with the House of Saud. It made more political sense to pick on Iraq.
:pee:This is the legacy of Sept. 11 -- that Bush failed the American people. :pee:Bush is a disgrace to every person who died in the attack, for he has failed to avenge their deaths. Instead, he used the deaths of 3,000 to further his own personal gains.
These are the FACTS. I hope no one is stupid enough to pass this off as a mere "conspiracy theory." Since it is obviously not.

I am wondering how this Anti-American coward bitch can sit where she is and say these things???? Well I know a lot of it has to do with she lives in the communist city of SAN FRANSTINKO but hey. Thats no excuse.
I am going in order of what I made bold.

"By invading a country that had nothing to do with them!"

You are full of shit. We had many reasons to oust Sadam Hussein.. For one he did have weapons of mass destruction which was in violation of the rules. Number 2 he was a great dictator for killing his own civilians wasn't he???? You probably think so!!!!

Bush sent a token force of 10,000 into Afghanistan

A token force into Afghanistan???? We still took ousted the Taliban did we not???? He sent in the best of the best he sent in transportation units to transport the SPECIAL FORCES!!!!

U.S. Intelligence knew where Bin Laden was -- hiding on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan

Ok what I put in bold here was not spelled correctly shows a person of no intelligence in the first place but hey..

If we knew exactly where he was we would have caught Bin Laden. We knew an approximate location. If you have ever been there gabby???? You would know that it is very tough and unforgiving terrain. I'd like to see you go over there you anti-war protesting Anti-American bitch.

This is the legacy of Sept. 11 -- that Bush failed the American people.

Just like a fucking liberal blame it all on Bush. Just like they blamed him for the bridge that collapsed and the Katrina. Yup he controls the weather and how things are built. Its the libs that have failed the American people. Look at how many liberals voted for our wars and look at how many are against them now.. I ask this if they are against it why did they vote for it in the first place???????????????

Bush is a disgrace to every person who died in the attack, for he has failed to avenge their deaths. Instead, he used the deaths of 3,000 to further his own personal gains.

Let me ask you this how many Al Quida leaders have been killed now??????

As far as your count on the deaths of 3,000. Do you know how many of our enemies have been killed in combat???? Probably not the liberal media wouldn't want to show that we are winning the war. But I can guarantee that its a lot more enemy combatants than US Soldiers. Yes I mourn for every single American Soldier that has paid the ultimate sacrifice for your freedoms. Also let me say that while I was defending the nation that I love and will fight for to the death if need be. WE DIDN'T GET THE SAME FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS YOU HAVE. YOU SHOULD BE GRATEFUL THAT THEY HAVE DEFENDED YOUR FREEDOMS EVEN THOUGH AT EVERY TURN YOU SLAP OUR SOLDIERS IN THE FACE!!! YOU ARE AN UNGRATEFUL TWIT. YOU GO TO THE 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES AND TELL ME THEY HAVE THE FREEDOMS YOU HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LET ME ALSO SAY THAT THE DEATHS OF OUR SOLDIERS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PERSONAL GAIN!!

YOU GABBY ARE A DISGRACE TO THE NATION THAT I AND MANY OTHERS HAVE DEFENDED!!!!

[waterrescuedude2000]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VpoudLoc8sY&mode=related&search=

[stephanie]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VpoudLoc8sY&mode=related&search=

Great video..:clap:
Unfortunatly.....quite a few.........HAVE FORGOTTEN..

[JohnDoe]

ANYBODY that would vote for Hillary in 2008 has to be not quite right in the head.:cuckoo: you are probably right on that, but the problem imo is, there is no republican out there to vote for that is any better than clinton, and that's a sad state...for us all!

[waterrescuedude2000]

you are probably right on that, but the problem imo is, there is no republican out there to vote for that is any better than clinton, and that's a sad state...for us all!

What about TANCREDO??????

[gabosaurus]

No person in their right mind will vote for Hillary. Or Tancredo.

Note to WRdude: No one has "defended our country" since WWII. You may have served in the military, but you did not "defend our country." Because our country has not been threatened. You silly whining merely points out how ridiculously uneducated and uninformed you are.

I read the responses to my thread. Obviously, none of you read it correctly. You have simply regurgitated the same stale old talking points.
The invasion of Iraq WAS the Bush response to Sept. 11. If you remember the idiots who attempted to link Saddam with the attacks. It is obvious that he didn't give a shit about bin Laden. Dubya merely wanted to take personal vengeance on Saddam.

You can post the WTC attack all you want. It doesn't explain why we never captured bin Laden. Or why we did not hold the Saudis accountable for the attacks. Instead, we took out someone who meant nothing.

[Dilloduck]

No person in their right mind will vote for Hillary. Or Tancredo.



I don't think anyone is worried about sane voters. :laugh2:

(cept TM of course):lmao:

[truthmatters]

Great video..:clap:
Unfortunatly.....quite a few.........HAVE FORGOTTEN..


And many have forgotten that Saddam and Iraq have been proven to have nothing to do with that day.

[-Cp]

And many have forgotten that Saddam and Iraq have been proven to have nothing to do with that day.

And too many liberals have confused the overall War on Jihad - nobody ever said Iraq or Saddam were behind 9/11 ...

[truthmatters]

And too many liberals have confused the overall War on Jihad - nobody ever said Iraq or Saddam were behind 9/11 ...

No they never said it out right they just made 70 % of the America believe striking Saddam was fighting AQ.

[stephanie]

No they never said it out right they just made 70 % of the America believe striking Saddam was fighting AQ.

?

[jimnyc]

No they never said it out right they just made 70 % of the America believe striking Saddam was fighting AQ.

And the inability of many to comprehend the situation means what? And your percentages, from another poll that samples .000001% again?

[Gaffer]

No person in their right mind will vote for Hillary. Or Tancredo.

Note to WRdude: No one has "defended our country" since WWII. You may have served in the military, but you did not "defend our country." Because our country has not been threatened. You silly whining merely points out how ridiculously uneducated and uninformed you are.

I read the responses to my thread. Obviously, none of you read it correctly. You have simply regurgitated the same stale old talking points.
The invasion of Iraq WAS the Bush response to Sept. 11. If you remember the idiots who attempted to link Saddam with the attacks. It is obvious that he didn't give a shit about bin Laden. Dubya merely wanted to take personal vengeance on Saddam.

You can post the WTC attack all you want. It doesn't explain why we never captured bin Laden. Or why we did not hold the Saudis accountable for the attacks. Instead, we took out someone who meant nothing.

Proudly showing your ignorance again.

In WW2 how much combat took place in this country? The country was defended by taking the fight to the enemy. It has been that way since then as well. You don't defend the country by barricading yourself and waiting to be attacked.

Anyone in uniform is defending their country by serving their country. It's not what you do but what you might have to do that qualifies as serving and defending the country.

bin laden has not been captured because he's hiding in pakistan and no one wants to start a war with them at this point. They want to try to buy their cooperation. Would you support an invasion of pakistan just to get bin laden? My bet is you would just call Bush a warmonger for attacking another innocent country that just happened to be harboring a mass murderer.

[gabosaurus]

Ridiculous points. Why did we invade Iraq? They had nothing that we needed or wanted. There are more than a dozen lunatic mass murderers running countries. Why did we choose one of them? Or did it just happen to be the one that dissed Bush's daddy?
The U.S. was attacked in World War II. We had war declared on us. The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.


And too many liberals have confused the overall War on Jihad - nobody ever said Iraq or Saddam were behind 9/11 ...

You have a selective memory. Cheney said it a couple of times. Rice also made the connection.

[jimnyc]

Ridiculous points. Why did we invade Iraq? They had nothing that we needed or wanted. There are more than a dozen lunatic mass murderers running countries. Why did we choose one of them? Or did it just happen to be the one that dissed Bush's daddy?

Can you please list all of those that were under UN resolutions, and were failing to abide by said resolutions for over a decade. Thanks!

[gabosaurus]

I thought that the U.S. didn't respect the U.N.? Are they not merely a worthless organization with no teeth or power? Or do ConReps merely pick and choose when they want to play the U.N. Card?
And those were not really U.N. resolutions. They were U.S. resolutions. And punitive ones at that.

[manu1959]

Ridiculous points. Why did we invade Iraq?
violation of cease fire terms and violation of 18 UN resolutions

They had nothing that we needed or wanted. There are more than a dozen lunatic mass murderers running countries. Why did we choose one of them?
one at a time you war monger

Or did it just happen to be the one that dissed Bush's daddy?
attempted assassination is not exactly a dis

The U.S. was attacked in World War II. We had war declared on us. The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.
a us ally was attacked by saddam and the terms of the withdrawal and cease fire violated

You have a selective memory. Cheney said it a couple of times. Rice also made the connection.
as did kerry, edwards, kennedy, biden, pelosi and most of the house and senate




:salute:

[jimnyc]

I thought that the U.S. didn't respect the U.N.? Are they not merely a worthless organization with no teeth or power? Or do ConReps merely pick and choose when they want to play the U.N. Card?
And those were not really U.N. resolutions. They were U.S. resolutions. And punitive ones at that.

Sorry, they were UN resolutions, specifically 1441 and 687.

And where is the list I asked for?

[manu1959]

I thought that the U.S. didn't respect the U.N.? Are they not merely a worthless organization with no teeth or power? Or do ConReps merely pick and choose when they want to play the U.N. Card?
And those were not really U.N. resolutions. They were U.S. resolutions. And punitive ones at that.

the libs respect the UN....thus you should respect Bush for enforcing the UN resolutions...seems you are picking and choosing as well....

[Gunny]

you are probably right on that, but the problem imo is, there is no republican out there to vote for that is any better than clinton, and that's a sad state...for us all!

I disagree. There are a couple of Republicans who are better. What you meant was there are no Democrats out there better?:poke:

[Gunny]

No person in their right mind will vote for Hillary. Or Tancredo.

Note to WRdude: No one has "defended our country" since WWII. You may have served in the military, but you did not "defend our country." Because our country has not been threatened. You silly whining merely points out how ridiculously uneducated and uninformed you are.

I read the responses to my thread. Obviously, none of you read it correctly. You have simply regurgitated the same stale old talking points.
The invasion of Iraq WAS the Bush response to Sept. 11. If you remember the idiots who attempted to link Saddam with the attacks. It is obvious that he didn't give a shit about bin Laden. Dubya merely wanted to take personal vengeance on Saddam.

You can post the WTC attack all you want. It doesn't explain why we never captured bin Laden. Or why we did not hold the Saudis accountable for the attacks. Instead, we took out someone who meant nothing.

Bull. You're blowing smoke. Simple as that.

[Gunny]

And many have forgotten that Saddam and Iraq have been proven to have nothing to do with that day.

Not those who never thought he did; which, apparently would be everyone except some gullible lefties who conveniently "thought so" after the fact to make yet another baseless accusation against Bush.

[Gunny]

No they never said it out right they just made 70 % of the America believe striking Saddam was fighting AQ.

That's as bullshit now as it has been since the first time I saw it.

[Gunny]

Ridiculous points. Why did we invade Iraq? They had nothing that we needed or wanted. There are more than a dozen lunatic mass murderers running countries. Why did we choose one of them? Or did it just happen to be the one that dissed Bush's daddy?
The U.S. was attacked in World War II. We had war declared on us. The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.



You have a selective memory. Cheney said it a couple of times. Rice also made the connection.

You are quite incorrect. Do your homework. The Bush admin's official stance has been to deny any connection between one and the other since a couple of days after 9/11.

Your argument about Saddam is disengenuous at best. We babysat his ass from Feb 91 up to the day we invaded. We had 12 years of his bullshit. Hardly makes him any old run of the mill despot.

[avatar4321]

Ridiculous points. Why did we invade Iraq? They had nothing that we needed or wanted. There are more than a dozen lunatic mass murderers running countries. Why did we choose one of them? Or did it just happen to be the one that dissed Bush's daddy?
The U.S. was attacked in World War II. We had war declared on us. The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.



You have a selective memory. Cheney said it a couple of times. Rice also made the connection.

Wait. you libs have been declaring for years that we went into Iraq for oil. How is that possible if they had nothign we needed or wanted?

[JohnDoe]

:salute:

Well, I don't believe we had an ally agreement of any sort with Kuwait. But the Brits did, and the Brits got a great deal of their oil from the Kuwait region.... George HW Bush did not want to go in to gulf war one, he said as mush to us and the very public, but then he got a visit from Margaret Thatcher, is what I have read, and changed his mind shortly after this meeting. Many say Thatcher asked for our help, and honestly, I don't find that hard to believe. Especially the way the Brits have come to our aid with this crisis, and stuck by us, no matter what, like there was some sort of IOU owed to us... AND THERE WAS, if we bailed their rumps out back with Gulf war one. (and yes I know we were also told that there were concerns about saddam going in to Saudi Arabia afterwards, but this has been disproven, I believe?)

And also Manu, there is the fact that the Cease fire for Gulf War 1 was never a cease fire agreement with us.

It was a Cease fire agreement that the UN drew up ...and Kuwait and Iraq are the signatories, the usa was not a signer of the Cease fire agreement, like I said, I am pretty certain it was Kuwait and Iraq because I remember looking it up once for debate a couple of years back. (But if you insist, I will search for a link, with my ever so slow dial up.....to give to you. :) )

And I was going to post to Gabby that I disagree this had anything to do with saddam's attempts on to Bush 1.... That is too simplistic imo, I think it was more on the line of building an oil empire in our pocket like all of our other competitors have done( only without war) like Russia and India and even China, with certain middle eastern oil producing communities like Iran on some, AND protecting our ally Israel, AND more on the lines of the PNAC's goals of world control by the usa, or policing the world.....

Iraq has an estimate of 20% of the entire world's oil reserves, and we use 25% of the entire world's oil taken out of the ground, even though we are only 5% of the population, or something like this....?

This is not about a simple assasination attempt, not in the least, imho Gabs! :)

And I would have to disagree with Gunny and maybe you, i think that this was "pushed" on to the American people as a war that would stop the smoking gun in this country from being a mushroom cloud, (wmd) ask Condi. ;)

This was also INDIRECTLY, and multiple, multiple, multiple times by various people in the administration, linked to 9/11 and many people in this country felt that it was Saddam that attacked us. I did not. But i could see how they thought the way they did, the way the ''sort of mindcontrol/brainwashing) took place, the repetitive mentioning of 911 and alqaeda and Iraq in the same paragraphs or even sentences, in speech after speech and 24/7 shows after 24/7 shows in the media.

Anyway, that's how this DOVE feels and thinks on the subject. :eek:

jd

[gabosaurus]

ConReps have been blowing out the "Dems in Congress also agreed!" crap about Iraq for years. The reason they agreed is because the Bushies flat out lied to them. Lied about WMDs. Lied about the connections between Saddam and AQ. Lied about Iraq as a threat.
The Bushies have been shitting out lies for years. The Bush apologists have been swallowing and regurgitating it all for the same amount of time.
It's all backtrack lies and deceit. All to cover up the terrorist actions of the Bushies. He promotes the bloodshed and you all celebrate it.

[jimnyc]

ConReps have been blowing out the "Dems in Congress also agreed!" crap about Iraq for years. The reason they agreed is because the Bushies flat out lied to them. Lied about WMDs.

Sorry to break the news to you but quite a few democrats were on the intelligence committee and were privy to the intel as well. And let's not forget the dems who were going on about Saddam and how he needed to be taken care of since 1998.

[Dilloduck]

ConReps have been blowing out the "Dems in Congress also agreed!" crap about Iraq for years. The reason they agreed is because the Bushies flat out lied to them. Lied about WMDs. Lied about the connections between Saddam and AQ. Lied about Iraq as a threat.
The Bushies have been shitting out lies for years. The Bush apologists have been swallowing and regurgitating it all for the same amount of time.
It's all backtrack lies and deceit. All to cover up the terrorist actions of the Bushies. He promotes the bloodshed and you all celebrate it.

Bullshit---the democrats knew the scoop and didnt want to miss the boat. They wanted their names on there as supporting the invasion so they could take credit for it if it was a quick success. "Bush tricked us"----:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Bush invaded afganistan as a response to 911.....

bush invaded iraq as the terms of the cease fire of gulf I were violated....

tell me of your great Saviour's response to.... WTC I.....somalia....the uss cole...the us embassy bombings....

Exactly. Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq 2003.

[JohnDoe]

Sorry to break the news to you but quite a few democrats were on the intelligence committee and were privy to the intel as well. And let's not forget the dems who were going on about Saddam and how he needed to be taken care of since 1998.

Put up!

SHOW me ONE Democrat back in 1998 that said we had to go in to a full fledge war to take care of saddam and his threat to us? NONE did. as far as I have seen from the quotes gathered by your side's partisan blogs and sites :poke:, it has all been the "big stick hype" a lion roaring, that we americans do well...
imo.

and we didn't send our troops in to a full fledge war to take out Saddam.

so the history also shows those "tough" statements back then were just that, STATEMENTS ...carrying the big stick, but not ready or willing to use it on Saddam....imo.


(When a lion roars he can't be hunting and he can't be devouring his prey, it is one of the safest times to be in the neighborhood of a lion, some say :) )

[jimnyc]

Put up!

SHOW me ONE Democrat back in 1998 that said we had to go in to a full fledge war to take care of saddam and his threat to us?

Why don't you stop trying to put words in my mouth and ask me to put up what I stated? I can easily produce factual quotes of MANY democrats claiming Saddam needed to be stopped and similar based comments. But I never stated any of them said we needed a full fledged war.

This is why you libs have a bad name when it comes to debating, you guys tend to just make shit up as you go along regardless of what we say.

[waterrescuedude2000]

No person in their right mind will vote for Hillary. Or Tancredo.

Note to WRdude: No one has "defended our country" since WWII. You may have served in the military, but you did not "defend our country." Because our country has not been threatened. You silly whining merely points out how ridiculously uneducated and uninformed you are.

I read the responses to my thread. Obviously, none of you read it correctly. You have simply regurgitated the same stale old talking points.
The invasion of Iraq WAS the Bush response to Sept. 11. If you remember the idiots who attempted to link Saddam with the attacks. It is obvious that he didn't give a shit about bin Laden. Dubya merely wanted to take personal vengeance on Saddam.

You can post the WTC attack all you want. It doesn't explain why we never captured bin Laden. Or why we did not hold the Saudis accountable for the attacks. Instead, we took out someone who meant nothing.

So while I was in the military what was I doing just looking pretty when I was overseas?????? Oh wait I was sitting with a thumb up my ass doing absolutely nothing no it wasn't your freedom of speech I was defending it was Kosovo which you probably think we should have never been there??????

[waterrescuedude2000]

No they never said it out right they just made 70 % of the America believe striking Saddam was fighting AQ.

How many AQ leaders have been killed and or captured between Afghanistan and Iraq???? Oh wait you liberals would rather fight the terrorists in our streets right???? You can argue that they are over there fighting us because we have invaded their "holy land" Well it is pretty well full of holes now because we are fucking them up. Anyways back to the point would you rather fight them here and they can kill our innocent civilians or theirs???? I'd rather not see civilians die but it is a fact of war civilians have died in every war in the history of mankind and I would rather see theirs die than ours. Sound cold???? Well tough shit better them than us.

[JohnDoe]

ConReps have been blowing out the "Dems in Congress also agreed!" crap about Iraq for years. The reason they agreed is because the Bushies flat out lied to them. Lied about WMDs. Lied about the connections between Saddam and AQ. Lied about Iraq as a threat.
The Bushies have been shitting out lies for years. The Bush apologists have been swallowing and regurgitating it all for the same amount of time.
It's all backtrack lies and deceit. All to cover up the terrorist actions of the Bushies. He promotes the bloodshed and you all celebrate it.

the majority of the democrats in congress DID NOT VOTE for the resolution.

the resolution was to give President Bush only, the decision in choosing to NOT GO TO WAR or to Go to war.... the Congress relinquished their constitutional powers to do this, imho....though i am open for discussion or debate on this....

either the day before or the day of the resolution, president Bush told congress and told the nation and ''insisted, that he had NOT made up his mind yet, on whether going to war was necessary. I guess now, with the rewriting of history, everyone is saying and implying that all the dems voted FOR THE WAR TOO.... And that is NOT how it really came down at the time.... people's memories are short i guess, and our political sides that influence us...know it, again, imo.

jd

[waterrescuedude2000]

Ridiculous points. Why did we invade Iraq? They had nothing that we needed or wanted. There are more than a dozen lunatic mass murderers running countries. Why did we choose one of them? Or did it just happen to be the one that dissed Bush's daddy?
The U.S. was attacked in World War II. We had war declared on us. The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.



You have a selective memory. Cheney said it a couple of times. Rice also made the connection.


So let me get this straight.... The United States was not attacked?????? What about the Twin towers, The pentagon, all of our civilians on those planes. No they were never attacked just keep pretending that it never happened. THIS WAS THE PEARL HARBOR OF OUR TIME!!!!!! THEY DID DECLARE WAR ON US as he said before its called Jihad which means a holy war.... The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.... Oh so we attacked Afghanistan for no reason???? I won't even bother to try and pull your head out of your ass about Iraq. You have your head so far up your ass you cant see the light of day. I will say that the liberal media makes it look 10 times worse than it is over there. They probably have done that in every war surprise surprise right???

[Gaffer]

Put up!

SHOW me ONE Democrat back in 1998 that said we had to go in to a full fledge war to take care of saddam and his threat to us? NONE did. as far as I have seen from the quotes gathered by your side's partisan blogs and sites :poke:, it has all been the "big stick hype" a lion roaring, that we americans do well...
imo.

and we didn't send our troops in to a full fledge war to take out Saddam.

so the history also shows those "tough" statements were just that, STATEMENTS...carrying the big stick, but not ready or willing to use it on Saddam....imo.


(When a lion roars he can't be hunting and he can't be devouring his prey, it is one of the safest times to be in the neighborhood of a lion, some say :) )

Hopefully Jim or one of the others has that list of dems that recited what all had to be done about saddam. It's been posted on this board in a couple of threads. It includes every major dem/lib who is currently complaining about iraq and calling for withdrawal from iraq and that we should never have gone there.

We initially went into iraq to take down saddam. That was the initial mission. It was a full fledged war. I dare you to tell my nephew he wasn't in a full fledged war. Saddam had 25 divisions facing our forces when they went in. Our forces cleaned them out with three divisions.

The tough talk and big stick was saddam. We warned him he was going down then went in with a chain saw.

When a lion roars you know where he is. You don't know where his mates are, and they are the ones doing the hunting.

[retiredman]

So let me get this straight.... The United States was not attacked?????? What about the Twin towers, The pentagon, all of our civilians on those planes. No they were never attacked just keep pretending that it never happened. THIS WAS THE PEARL HARBOR OF OUR TIME!!!!!! THEY DID DECLARE WAR ON US as he said before its called Jihad which means a holy war.... The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.... Oh so we attacked Afghanistan for no reason???? I won't even bother to try and pull your head out of your ass about Iraq. You have your head so far up your ass you cant see the light of day. I will say that the liberal media makes it look 10 times worse than it is over there. They probably have done that in every war surprise surprise right???

the US was attacked. We were attacked by an enemy that we really ought to have been concentrating on 24/7 since 9/11/01. Our offensive against Afghanistan was appropriate and was evidence that the Bush administration was, indeed concentrating on the enemy that had attacked us.

The attack against Iraq was clear evidence that the Bush administration had taken their eyes off the ball... had forgotten who the real enemy was, and everything that has happened since then has been counterproductive to the effort to prevail in the conflict against the guys who attacked us.

THEY are as strong today as they were the day they attacked us. THAT is what Bush has spent five years, 31K dead and wounded, and a half a trillion dollars to accomplish: our enemy is undiminished in his capacity.

And beyond that, the war in Iraq has created chaos and carnage and anarchy in Iraq where once there was brutal order. It has emboldened Iran and allowed it to increase its stature in the Islamic world and make significant gains in its regional hegemony agenda that had been fairly well contained and foiled by the orderly brute we deposed....the same orderly brute and tinhorn dictator that Bush's own secretary of state claimed was not a threat to America months before 9/11.

General William Odom, former director of the NSA, has called the decision to invade Iraq the worst strategic blunder of our country's history.... but what the fuck does HE know, right?

[JohnDoe]

Hopefully Jim or one of the others has that list of dems that recited what all had to be done about saddam. It's been posted on this board in a couple of threads. It includes every major dem/lib who is currently complaining about iraq and calling for withdrawal from iraq and that we should never have gone there.

We initially went into iraq to take down saddam. That was the initial mission. It was a full fledged war. I dare you to tell my nephew he wasn't in a full fledged war. Saddam had 25 divisions facing our forces when they went in. Our forces cleaned them out with three divisions.

The tough talk and big stick was saddam. We warned him he was going down then went in with a chain saw.

When a lion roars you know where he is. You don't know where his mates are, and they are the ones doing the hunting.

You know, either you are just trying to bate me or you have a reading comprehension problem Gaffer...j/k u btwWhat I am speaking about above is that back in 1998 when all of those tough statements and professions of saddam's danger to us was going on, it was nothing but a Lion roaring....pretending we are carrying a big stick and that we would use it yahdeedah.... but Clinton nor the Democrats, nor the Republicans at that time for this matter, recommended or suggested or acted upon, going in to a full fledge war, to take the threat of saddam out.

AND YES, of COURSE the war in Iraq is a full fledge war.... that was MY POINT!

[Kathianne]

the US was attacked. We were attacked by an enemy that we really ought to have been concentrating on 24/7 since 9/11/01. Our offensive against Afghanistan was appropriate and was evidence that the Bush administration was, indeed concentrating on the enemy that had attacked us.

The attack against Iraq was clear evidence that the Bush administration had taken their eyes off the ball... had forgotten who the real enemy was, and everything that has happened since then has been counterproductive to the effort to prevail in the conflict against the guys who attacked us.

THEY are as strong today as they were the day they attacked us. THAT is what Bush has spent five years, 31K dead and wounded, and a half a trillion dollars to accomplish: our enemy is undiminished in his capacity.

And beyond that, the war in Iraq has created chaos and carnage and anarchy in Iraq where once there was brutal order. It has emboldened Iran and allowed it to increase its stature in the Islamic world and make significant gains in its regional hegemony agenda that had been fairly well contained and foiled by the orderly brute we deposed....the same orderly brute and tinhorn dictator that Bush's own secretary of state claimed was not a threat to America months before 9/11.

General William Odom, former director of the NSA, has called the decision to invade Iraq the worst strategic blunder of our country's history.... but what the fuck does HE know, right?
I haven't made up my mind, at this late date whether I agree with you or not. Somehow though I am reminded of the Red Cross and inspections of German 'detention'/retraining camps and their sign off that everything was more than acceptable.

[Gunny]

the US was attacked. We were attacked by an enemy that we really ought to have been concentrating on 24/7 since 9/11/01. Our offensive against Afghanistan was appropriate and was evidence that the Bush administration was, indeed concentrating on the enemy that had attacked us.

The attack against Iraq was clear evidence that the Bush administration had taken their eyes off the ball... had forgotten who the real enemy was, and everything that has happened since then has been counterproductive to the effort to prevail in the conflict against the guys who attacked us.

THEY are as strong today as they were the day they attacked us. THAT is what Bush has spent five years, 31K dead and wounded, and a half a trillion dollars to accomplish: our enemy is undiminished in his capacity.

And beyond that, the war in Iraq has created chaos and carnage and anarchy in Iraq where once there was brutal order. It has emboldened Iran and allowed it to increase its stature in the Islamic world and make significant gains in its regional hegemony agenda that had been fairly well contained and foiled by the orderly brute we deposed....the same orderly brute and tinhorn dictator that Bush's own secretary of state claimed was not a threat to America months before 9/11.

General William Odom, former director of the NSA, has called the decision to invade Iraq the worst strategic blunder of our country's history.... but what the fuck does HE know, right?

Couldn't be the fact that this "enemy" is sitting across the border in Pakistan where we can't go without invading ANOTHER country. So what's it to be? Invade Pakistan or quit blaming Bush for the Taliban/AQ sitting in a political sanctuary and refurbishing?

[retiredman]

Saddam's level of brutality to the shiites in his own country is, pragmatically speaking, of little relative concern to us in any case. We have an enemy... and that enemy was not secular Iraqi baathists. the war in Iraq is a counter-productive diversion from our real mission by any measure.

[JohnDoe]

gawd gaffer, I just didn't word any of that right.

And I don't think my point was made with my post above so if you want to start all over again, I will....

jd

[retiredman]

Couldn't be the fact that this "enemy" is sitting across the border in Pakistan where we can't go without invading ANOTHER country. So what's it to be? Invade Pakistan or quit blaming Bush for the Taliban/AQ sitting in a political sanctuary and refurbishing?

I have absolutely no problem invading Pakistan to get at AQ...they are our enemy.

I blame Bush for losing strategic focus. That alone has cost us 31K dead and wounded, a half a trillion dollars, and five years and we have ZERO to show for the "investment"!!

[Dilloduck]

Saddam's level of brutality to the shiites in his own country is, pragmatically speaking, of little relative concern to us in any case. We have an enemy... and that enemy was not secular Iraqi baathists. the war in Iraq is a counter-productive diversion from our real mission by any measure.

I'll bite---what do you think our real mission is---now ?

[retiredman]

I'll bite---what do you think our real mission is---now ?

let me bite first...what would YOU say it is?

[retiredman]

but while you are answering (or not), I will answer YOUR question.

I believe our real mission OUGHT to be what it has been since 9/11/01: the defeat of the ideology of wahabbist islamic extremism.

[Dilloduck]

let me bite first...what would YOU say it is?

Jesus Christ---what is this ? kindergarten?

[JohnDoe]

Couldn't be the fact that this "enemy" is sitting across the border in Pakistan where we can't go without invading ANOTHER country. So what's it to be? Invade Pakistan or quit blaming Bush for the Taliban/AQ sitting in a political sanctuary and refurbishing?
But don't you think that if President Bush HADN'T WASTED his resources and world wide good will, in going in to Iraq unnecessarily at THAT time, THEN there would not have been ANOTHER invaision as you said....?

it would have been the first invaision outside of afghanistan and it would have been sanctioned by the majority of countries in the world at the time, because we were in persuit of Bin Laden and we would have also still had the "good will " of the world and the UN probably, behind us invading the hills in pakistan to find Bin Laden.

[retiredman]

Jesus Christ---what is this ? kindergarten?


if you'll notice...I answered you. what do you have to offer other than tap dancing?

[Gaffer]

gawd gaffer, I just didn't word any of that right.

And I don't think my point was made with my post above so if you want to start all over again, I will....

jd

Ok sounds good. It did seem a bit rambling and on reading your second post I figured out you were talking about clinton. It did seem off kilter from what you usually post. We can try it again if you like.

[Gunny]

But don't you think that if President Bush HADN'T WASTED his resources and world wide good will, in going in to Iraq unnecessarily at THAT time, THEN there would not have been ANOTHER invaision as you said....?

it would have been the first invaision outside of afghanistan and it would have been sanctioned by the majority of countries in the world at the time, because we were in persuit of Bin Laden and we would have also still had the "good will " of the world and the UN probably, behind us invading the hills in pakistan to find Bin Laden.

First off, that world-wide goodwill crap is wasted on me. It didn't exist. The same people that don't like us now, didn't like us then. They just kept their mouthes shut while we were looking for something to aim at.

And no, we'd be listening to the same crap from the left and the rest of your wonderful world about Pakistan that we are listening to about Iraq.

And I find it rather amusing that you people so critical of invading Iraq are all suddenly, "well, Pakistan would've been alright." You can sell that West Texas swampland somewhere else.:poke:

[retiredman]

we were and are critical of the decision to invade Iraq BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.... not because it was some foreign country. I have absolutely no problem with America doing what we need to do to protect our national interests. Invading Pakistan to root out AQ...perhaps get OBL... THAT would be and has always been in our national interests.... just like sending a cruise missile strike onto camps where we thought he was hanging out...just like invading Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 because that is where he was being sheltered.... I have no problem with ANY of that. Iraq was a boneheaded mistake, and, while I realize that we need to at least TRY tofigure out some way to extricate ourselves without making things significantly worse, I am not entirely sure that is even a possibility at this point. And in any case, I firmly believe that George W. Bush and his party ought to pay a price for that boneheaded mistake...and that price, at a minimum, should include handing over the keys and going to sit quietly in the back of the bus for an extended "time out".

[waterrescuedude2000]

No person in their right mind will vote for Hillary. Or Tancredo.

Note to WRdude: No one has "defended our country" since WWII. You may have served in the military, but you did not "defend our country." Because our country has not been threatened. You silly whining merely points out how ridiculously uneducated and uninformed you are.

I read the responses to my thread. Obviously, none of you read it correctly. You have simply regurgitated the same stale old talking points.
The invasion of Iraq WAS the Bush response to Sept. 11. If you remember the idiots who attempted to link Saddam with the attacks. It is obvious that he didn't give a shit about bin Laden. Dubya merely wanted to take personal vengeance on Saddam.

You can post the WTC attack all you want. It doesn't explain why we never captured bin Laden. Or why we did not hold the Saudis accountable for the attacks. Instead, we took out someone who meant nothing.


DID YOU READ THOSE UN RESOLUTIONS GABBY??????

[gabosaurus]

Why are you still spouting shit over the U.N. resolutions? I thought you didn't believe in the U.N. Is the U.N. only representative when you want it to be?

Doesn't ask me though. I am still trying to figure out how a legitimate topic can be classified as a "conspiracy theory." Must be a conspiracy to get the truth across to a vast faction of idiots.

[Gunny]

Why are you still spouting shit over the U.N. resolutions? I thought you didn't believe in the U.N. Is the U.N. only representative when you want it to be?

Doesn't ask me though. I am still trying to figure out how a legitimate topic can be classified as a "conspiracy theory." Must be a conspiracy to get the truth across to a vast faction of idiots.

Doesn't matter whether or not he believes in the UN. What matters is that you and those of your political bent DO. So, in the effort to cowtow to Political Correctness, the UN was given the opportunity to be more than the paper tiger it is. As usual, it failed.