Cia Agrees With Kerry.

[KCFlyer]

Oh, is that the latest spin on Kerry's foot-in-mouth faux pas? That guy can explain his way out of anything, like voting for something before he voted against it. :huh:

Perhaps sitting down with other world leaders and actually LISTENING to their concerns instead of shouting "you're either with us or agin us" and "F--- You, Frogs".

Like Schroeder who just cared about being reelected? Or Chirac who was getting kickbacks from the oil-for-food-program? (Note that the wonderful French wouldn't even allow our bombers to fly through their airspace on the way to bombing Libya in 1986 and were even petty enough that their leader refused to attend the state funeral for former President Reagan). Or a vast assemblage of turd world leaders who don't have a dog in the fight? The French would be especially valuable if our military needs to know how to raise their hands in surrender.

Perhaps the French should focus on the anti-semitism that is rampant in their country. The State Department should issue a travel advisory warning Jewish Americans not to visit France.

If Kerry wins, he won't do diddly against the terrorists unless the U.N., esp France, approves. Fat chance. At least he'll be "sensitive". 🙄

[post="168559"][/post]​

MEanwhile, enjoy those machine gun toting subway guards and the loss of your liberties courtesy of your warmongering president. I wonder, will Tom Ridge see fit to declare an orange alert for the GOP convention. Stock up on your duct tape today. Much as you might want to spin away, Chirac was dead on the money when he said that attacking Iraq would result in lots of little bin ladens cropping up.

 

[NWA/AMT]

At least he'll be "sensitive".

[post="168559"][/post]​

Looks like he won't be the only one:

Bush: “Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that.â€￾ [Bush Delivers Remarks at the Unity, Journalists of Color Conference, 8/6/04]

It's nice to see that George is getting in touch with his sensitive side and learning to follow Kerry's lead.

 

[AgMedallion]

MEanwhile, enjoy those machine gun toting subway guards and the loss of your liberties courtesy of your warmongering president. I wonder, will Tom Ridge see fit to declare an orange alert for the GOP convention. Stock up on your duct tape today. Much as you might want to spin away, Chirac was dead on the money when he said that attacking Iraq would result in lots of little bin ladens cropping up.

[post="168568"][/post]​

Wow, you sure nailed down the cause of the radical Muslim's hatred of us...our "warmongering" President. :huh: Better to do nothing I suppose. No sense in getting those wackos po'd at us. Just sit back and watch your fellow Americans get blown up, beheaded, leap, in flames, from the 80th floor of the WTC. Oh wait. I seem to remember that during the 70s, 80s and 90s, our wonderful Muslim friends were also killing innocent Americans. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, this problem existed before GWB was President? At least he recognizes the problem and wants to do something about it, not just wring his hands and have meaningless subpoenas and indictments issued against the evil SOBs who are doing this. Yeah, the Clinton solution of papering the enemy over with legal writs, then offering them tons of money for their legal defense so they can get some dumbas* OJ type jury let them get off scot free, or, at worst, spend a few years in an air-conditioned jail with cable TV. Or, if you really want them to know you mean business, send some million dollar Cruise Missiles smashing into some empty $10 tents thousands of miles away. That [/B} will show them how tough we are!! At least that's the "sensitive" way to do it.

 

[KCFlyer]

Wow, you sure nailed down the cause of the radical Muslim's hatred of us...our "warmongering" President. :huh: Better to do nothing I suppose. No sense in getting those wackos po'd at us. Just sit back and watch your fellow Americans get blown up, beheaded, leap, in flames, from the 80th floor of the WTC. Oh wait. I seem to remember that during the 70s, 80s and 90s, our wonderful Muslim friends were also killing innocent Americans. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, this problem existed before GWB was President? At least he recognizes the problem and wants to do something about it, not just wring his hands and have meaningless subpoenas and indictments issued against the evil SOBs who are doing this. Yeah, the Clinton solution of papering the enemy over with legal writs, then offering them tons of money for their legal defense so they can get some dumbas* OJ type jury let them get off scot free, or, at worst, spend a few years in an air-conditioned jail with cable TV. Or, if you really want them to know you mean business, send some million dollar Cruise Missiles smashing into some empty $10 tents thousands of miles away. That [/B} will show them how tough we are!! At least that's the "sensitive" way to do it.

[post="168712"][/post]​

As I recall, Americans weren't being beheaded and getting blown up until sometime AFTER our invasion of Iraq. And you know something...in the days following the WTC attacks, I was behind GWB 100%. Then he set his sites on Iraq. And I had to question why. True enough, Saddam was a bad guy, but I don't believe he was the threat to the USA that GWB wanted us to believe he was. The only thing the Iraqi's and the 9/11 terrorists had in common is that they are both Arabs. As I recall, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, and had a significant amount of support and funding from terrorist groups in Saudi Arabia. But GWB is oddly not going after those folks...he set his sites accross the border into Iraq. Why is that? Many of the beheadings were happening over in Saudi Arabia, yet GWB doesn't launch any preemptive attackss over there. Why is that? And then the Saudis offer AMNESTY of all things to terrorists. And GWB doesn't view THAT act as being "agin us". Boy....that'll show 'em we mean business.

Meanwhile, while we have freed the Iraqi people from the grips of a horrible dictator (not our number one reason for going there, but it sure sounds good to many "sensitive" folks), the terrorist groups are over there recruiting RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES. Had we not invaded Iraq...had we actually bothered to listen to other world leaders....one has to wonder if their recruiting efforts would be nearly as good as they are. Hell, I think half the Muslim world, radical or no, understood our attack on the Taliban. But they, like many folks in America, are scratching their heads over our attack of Iraq. But while the American publics head scratching Is due to confusion , a good chunk of the Muslim world is scratching their head in anger . it doesn't help that our president claims to be on a mission from God to bring democracy to an area of the world that doesn't want it . Indeed Bush's Bible quoting is being interpreted as a holy war .

The bottom line is that our efforts in Iraq have resulted in a greater threat of terrorism against the United States than there would have been had we actually listened to the other world leaders.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I seem to remember that during the 70s, 80s and 90s, our wonderful Muslim friends were also killing innocent Americans.

[post="168712"][/post]​

While you're stretching your memory, remember that it was Reagan/Bush the First who organized, trained, armed and deployed the terrorists who formed the nucleus of Al Qaeda, including one Osama Bin Laden.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, this problem existed before GWB was President?

Certainly, remember the Reagan administration's Iran/Contra conspiracy where they traded weapons to the terrorists for hostages? Maybe we should offer to trade the terrorists some more Improved Hawk surface to air missiles next time they take a hostage, the other ones have probably expired.

At least he recognizes the problem and wants to do something about it...

When Al Qaeda, an entity with no fixed base or nationality, attacks us again who will George invade then? Maybe Jamaica, our troops would certainly appreciate the change of scenery. Flailing around blindly or using the terrorist attacks as an excuse to settle old scores certainly isn't working, so maybe he'll start picking them at random.

Since he already used 9/11 and the so-called Patriot Act to get rid of that pesky Fourth Amendment, what one will he and Ashcroft take on with Patriot Act II, The Wrath of John? How long before the American people realize that there was a reason the people of Missouri voted for a dead guy rather than re-elect John Ashcroft?

While Bush has been trying to make Iraq into the 51st state, Arab terrorists, possibly with Al Qaeda backing but certainly with the backing of the Sudanese government, have been slaughtering the inhabitants of the Darfur region of Sudan. Could it be they're trying to clear the area to open a few training camps? It will be a while before we find out because the Bush solution was to send Colin to confer with the Sudanese leaders, some of the same people who are backing the terrorists to begin with. Is that what you mean by trying 'to do something about it'?

Of course, to the NeoCons it is obvious who should get the blame for all of this...Bill Clinton, of course!

When the economy goes in the tank we shouldn't blame George, it was Clinton's fault! Of course if it should accidentally turn around then George should get all the credit.

If the weapon the Republicans created to fight the Soviets 25 years ago turns on us, it's Clinton's fault. But if, for the first time, American public opinion supports our attacking them back? The NeoCons think George should get all the credit.

When the Republican-controlled House turns its back on Afghanistan in 1994, allowing the Taliban to take over and giving Al Qaeda a home? Bill again.

When the WTC is attacked again eight years after the first attack, even though the people who attacked it before have been arrested tried and are imprisoned at the time, it's obviously Clinton's fault.

When the US discovers that it was Saudi money financing Al Qaeda to keep their corrupt regime from being attacked? Bill Clinton must have done it.

When the US discovers that our Pakistani 'friends' have actually been supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda for years? Bill Clinton again.

When the US turns its back on the Arab terrorists in Darfur? Well, Clinton must have had something to do with it.

If Clinton's record budget surplus gets turned by Bush into a record deficit, even if you exclude the cost of the war on terrorism? Clinton again, that crafty rascal.

Easy to see why he had to stick to oral sex, he didn't have time to get undressed! Being a NeoCon is easy as long as Bill Clinton is around to take the blame.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Those of you following this thread might enjoy this blog:

http://WhateverItIsImAgainstIt.blogspot.com/

 

[AgMedallion]

As I recall, Americans weren't being beheaded and getting blown up until sometime AFTER our invasion of Iraq.

I never said they were being beheaded, I said "killing innocent Americans". That's been happening since the 70s, when planes were being hijacked to the desert and blown up, the Achile Lauro and Leon Klinghofer, the U.S. sailor who was shot and thrown out of that hijacked plane, the Berlin discotheque bombing, Pan Am flight 103, Marine barracks in Lebanon, U.S. embassies in Africa, USS Coale, LAX ticket counter shooting, '93 WTC, etc etc etc. This constant bleating by the liberals that our retaliations (or any offensive action we take) are causing this makes one wonder if these folks had been around on December 7, 1941, if they would have been saying we shouldn't do anything to retaliate against, much less declare war on, Japan, because we would get them even more ticked off and they would kill even more Americans. I guess this is the ostrich method of conducting foreign relations. Just stick your head in the sand and it will go away. Re Iraq, while I support GWB's getting rid of Sadam, I think he's being foolishly idealistic in thinking the U.S. can turn that place, or any Arab country, into any kind of democracy. There's a reason most Arab countries are living back in the 19th century (and in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, it was probably the 12th century). There's a reason why (if what I read is accurate) more patents were issued to South Koreans than to all Arab countries combined. As Tony Snow once put it (and his is the most concise and accurate, though politically incorrect, description of the current world situation I have ever heard), the Arabs have a "loser religion" and a "loser culture". Instead of lashing out at the rest of the world for their problems, they should look in the mirror and realize that it's them who are out of step. Many liberals can bray all they want about folks like me being "racist" (their favorite put down) when we point to the radical Muslims being the cause of much of the world's current strife and thus deserving of greater security scrutiny, but it's simply being realistic and, as Dennis Miller once said, "minimally observant". I don't think Kerry's sensitivity crap is very realistic. We can't make our own security needs subservient to any desire to "make nice" i.e. kowtow, to corrupt leaders like Chirac, who have their own agenda which definitely does NOT include the well-being of the United States or it's citizens. The French are not our allies and, while they can't be described as our enemy, they would definitely qualify as folks working at cross purposes to our best interests. IMHO, if Kerry is elected, he won't be aggressive in protecting our safety, will seek to do whatever it takes to mollify radical Muslims and countries like France. I see him as potentially being as incompetent and naive as Jimmy Carter. Carter even makes Clinton look good in comparison. And that is especially damning!

The bottom line is that our efforts in Iraq have resulted in a greater threat of terrorism against the United States than there would have been had we actually listened to the other world leaders.

The actual bottom line is that ANY offensive action we take against terrorists will get them ticked off and possibly aid in their recruitment efforts. What's the alternative, just give up and accept a certain number of American deaths as being acceptable? Change our way of life to comply with what those monsters would deem "holy", i.e. like taliban-controlled Afghanistan? Make no mistake about it, Dick Cheney is 100% right. We can't and shouldn't negotiate or act in a "sensitive" manner with the terrorists. The only acceptable way of dealing with them is to kill them. This country never did a damned thing to warrant what those so-called human beings have done. They are delusional monsters who, in effect, worship death. We should give them what they worship.

 

[AA-MCI]

I never said they were being beheaded, I said "killing innocent Americans".

[post="168908"][/post]​

Really?

Just sit back and watch your fellow Americans get blown up, beheaded, leap, in flames, from the 80th floor of the WTC.

 

[AgMedallion]

Really?

[post="168912"][/post]​

Amazing. How long did it take you to compose that learned response? Are you, by chance, a member of Kerry's foreign relations think tank? 😀

It was my understanding that KCFlyer was implying that I said Americans were being beheaded since the 70s, which I never said. Of course, if what he was saying is that because now Americans are being beheaded, it's much worse than the 70s/80s/90s, that's a distinction without a difference. The number murdered by other means is now hundreds of times higher. The beheading business is simply a recruitment device the radical Muslims, i.e. Islamofascists, use to recruit more members. Amazing how even the Nazis realized that many Germans would have been horrified if they knew what was going on in the concentration camps (well, maybe not exactly horrified, but at least concerned and disapproving because it makes them look bad). So it was, to the extent possible, kept secret. But now, 50+ years later, the radical Muslims are so proud of their horrible deeds that they actually take pictures to use to get more Muslims to join in. The Arab world is horrified to learn that a relatively minute number of clueless American soldiers are putting panties on Arab prisoners' heads but they don't give a damn that Arab thugs are lopping off the heads of innocent Americans and foreigners. Sort of the same reaction as Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein, among other liberal Democrats. They sure are focused in on what is really evil....i.e. putting panties on someone's head vs cutting off heads.

 

[KCFlyer]

Amazing. How long did it take you to compose that learned response? Are you, by chance, a member of Kerry's foreign relations think tank? 😀

It was my understanding that KCFlyer was implying that I said Americans were being beheaded since the 70s, which I never said. Of course, if what he was saying is that because now Americans are being beheaded, it's much worse than the 70s/80s/90s, that's a distinction without a difference. The number murdered by other means is now hundreds of times higher. The beheading business is simply a recruitment device the radical Muslims, i.e. Islamofascists, use to recruit more members. Amazing how even the Nazis realized that many Germans would have been horrified if they knew what was going on in the concentration camps (well, maybe not exactly horrified, but at least concerned and disapproving because it makes them look bad). So it was, to the extent possible, kept secret. But now, 50+ years later, the radical Muslims are so proud of their horrible deeds that they actually take pictures to use to get more Muslims to join in. The Arab world is horrified to learn that a relatively minute number of clueless American soldiers are putting panties on Arab prisoners' heads but they don't give a damn that Arab thugs are lopping off the heads of innocent Americans and foreigners. Sort of the same reaction as Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein, among other liberal Democrats. They sure are focused in on what is really evil....i.e. putting panties on someone's head vs cutting off heads.

[post="169288"][/post]​

Sorry Ag Medallion...my thoughts are exactly like AA-MCI - you mentioned beheadings as just one of the reasons we are over there. And the beheadings didn't happen until AFTER the Iraq invasion. but you are right...the Arab world isn't outraged at the beheadings. Heck, Saudi Arabia even offered AMNESTY to terrorists. Yet GWB, commander in chief of the war on terror, hasn't seen fit to do anything about that. How do you explain that? The outrage by much of the world ont he panties on the head thing goes a bit deeper. Apparently, Bush, Cheney and Rummy all feel that the Geneva Convention can be ignored in these times of terror. There was a bit more than panties on the head. There was a little thing called "torture" that was taking place. What would the US response be if our enemy was torturing our prisoners in times of war? Would the Geneva Convention apply then?

What do you think about the patriot act, which gives the government the right to spy on even us lily white WASP folks...all in the name of "terrorists"? Are you all for Patriot 2, which will reduce our freedoms even more? Heck....under patriot 2, anybody going to the Democratic Convention could be classified as terrorists (they are "agin us"). Ah....let freedom ring.

The response of the Arabs is no different than the reaction of Americans to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If you recall, once our country was attacked, young men were lining up to enlist in the fight against the Japanese. Men who were rejected by the US Army tried getting in thru the Canadian army. In 2001, we were attacked again. And our response was swift (and correct). Then we took the war to Iraq - a country whose threat to America was questionable. I don't recall massive terrorist recruitment campaigns after our actions against the Taliban...perhaps even the radicals could see that this was retaliation for those responsible for the attack on our shores. But after Iraq...different story. I don't see lines forming at the Army recruiter to help out on this war on terror. But it sure seems like our actions in Iraq have motivated some "patriotic duty", however bent, in the Arab world. It's just like Chirac warned prior to the war. But we didn't need to listen to him....he's just one of those cowardly Frogs.

 

[AA-MCI]

Amazing. How long did it take you to compose that learned response? Are you, by chance, a member of Kerry's foreign relations think tank?

[post="169288"][/post]​

Nope, but at least I don't have to deny saying the things I've said. Are you, by chance, a member of the Bush Administration? Your powers of of obfuscation would fit right in there.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Amazing. How long did it take you to compose that learned response? Are you, by chance, a member of Kerry's foreign relations think tank?

Just because you can't keep track of what you're saying doesn't mean you should be angry at those who do. One of the main differences between the Democrats and the Republicans these days is that Democrats still listen to the other side in a debate and the Republicans apparently don't even listen to themselves.

Of course, if what he was saying is that because now Americans are being beheaded, it's much worse than the 70s/80s/90s, that's a distinction without a difference. The number murdered by other means is now hundreds of times higher.

That's obviously not what he was saying but I find your original statement rather interesting. Apparently you are trying to include those killed in Iraq with those killed in the World Trade Center by Al Qaeda. Do you have some evidence that the Bush administration has somehow overlooked or are you simply trying to bolster your argument with a post hoc logical fallacy?

The beheading business is simply a recruitment device the radical Muslims, i.e. Islamofascists, use to recruit more members.

I'm guessing it would surprise you to learn that many of the militias involved in the insurgency in Iraq are neither religious organizations nor related to the previous regime or the Ba'ath party. Very few of them have even the most tenuous links to Al Qaeda and for most of them their only link to terrorism is that it is the method they are using to repel a foreign invader. (Just as most of us would in their place, I'd wager.)

Iraq as a single entity is a construct of the major powers in the years following the First World War, much like the similarly successful Yugoslavia. The area we call Iraq has historically been divided along social, ethnic and religious lines into three parts; the Northern Kurds, the Central Sunni Moslems of Arabic extraction and the Southern Shi'ia or Shiite Moslems who ethnically have more in common with the Persians in Iran than either of the other two groups.

None of the three sides wants to see either of the other sides in power, particularly the Shiites and Kurds who have mostly lived under the rule of the Sunni minority since just after WWI. The Sunnis and Shi'ia have been at each others throats since the Ninth Century A.D over what is, to our way of thinking, a minor dispute over religious doctrine and both have tried periodically to exterminate the Kurds whom both look down on as slightly less than human.

Prior to our arrival the only thing they had in common was their fear of Saddam. Unfortunately for us, the only other thing they have ever had in common for any amount of time is a hatred for invaders, of which we are only the latest in their view. It reaches across religious, social and ethnic lines to unite them as nothing has for generations. They don't need recruiting devices, our presence there is quite enough.

The Bush administration apparently expected Jeffersonian Democracy to spring whole from the bloody Iraqi soil and instead has blundered into a family feud centuries old. Instead of cheering throngs we got IEDs and RPGs. Many people both here and abroad tried to bring these facts to Bush's attention before the war began but the NeoCons chose to listen to those who told them what they wanted to hear. No matter how much they try to pretend that it has something to do with Al Qaeda, or whatever the excuse is this week, they have not bothered to present even the most basic evidence to back up their claims.

When KCFLYER says that it has done nothing to move our war on the terrorists forward, he's right. Now we're stuck with it for at least a generation, thanks to George, and it's taking up resources we need to fight our real enemy, Al Qaeda.

The Arab world is horrified to learn that a relatively minute number of clueless American soldiers are putting panties on Arab prisoners' heads but they don't give a damn that Arab thugs are lopping off the heads of innocent Americans and foreigners.

Silly them, they thought we were the good guys and expected us to act like it. They were probably just surprised that we didn't dismiss them as 'Collateral Damage' as we do those we kill, however unintentionally, who may be equally innocent.

Sort of the same reaction as Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein, among other liberal Democrats.

What, Bill Clinton gets a day off? If Kennedy and Feinstein believe that because we are the United States of America we should be held to a higher standard, I can't say that I disagree. Neither did most of the Republicans who viewed the pictures from Abu Graib back in May, no matter how they try to spin things now. What of the more than 30 Iraqi prisoners who have died in our custody? Were they payback? If so then which atrocity were they payback for? When will we be even? "Because they did" is a rationalization more suited to the schoolyard bully than to the leader of the free world.

Becoming just like our enemies is not a good path to victory over them but it is one sure way to hand them a victory.

 

[FredF]

I am not sure how or why, but it seem a couple of you are not quite up on the whole of the situation in Iraq.

Sadam was a big supporter of Al-queida. If not outright financial support, he at the very least provided safe haven to them and allowed them to build training camps. He protected them in his country, he provided them with state support for thier cause and mission. Read that again, he provided state support for them. That is state sponsored terrorism. We know this. It has been proven. There are many witnesses to it and documents to support it as well as most of the competant intelligence agencies around the world agree.

For you to say that we have not significantly weakened al-queida by the removal of Sadam is flat out wrong and you either don't fully understand the whole of the situation here or you have your head in the sand because it supports your particular political leanings. Did you ever stop to consider that instead of one large, well financed, well orgamized terrorist network with state support it has now been reduced to a lot of small, poorly organized and poorly financed groups struggling to find a home. To my way of thinking, that is much better that the situation before.

Either way it really doesn't matter.

It is also very clear here that you have a genuine hatred for the president. Not a strong disagreement of what he is doing, but a deep seeded hatred for the man. In your eyes and to read your notes on this thread and others, this hatred is blinding you to the truth.

I do not know what the root source of this hatred is, nor do I much care. When Bill Clinton was in office, I strongly disagreed whit what he was doing and how he was going about it. I firmly believed that he should have been removed from office for the crimes he committed(by the way lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury would put most people into Federal Big Boy Prison), but there was not a strong feeling of hatred that we are seeing coming from the left against Bush.

It is also very apparant that it does not matter what course of action the President takes, you will firmly believe that it is wrong. It does not matter to you what has been uncovered in Iraq or that the country is being re-born under a democratic rule. It does not matter one bit that the same people that are screaming today that Iraq was a mistake, were screaming just as loudly under Clinton that he should do exactly what Bush has done.

One more though here, not that it will make much difference, those of you out there with this hatred for the president, those of you out there that would seek to see him removed from office, calling him names and wishing he was not there, He is working to keep you and your families safe as well.



Have a nice day!

 

[KCFlyer]

I am not sure how or why, but it seem a couple of you are not quite up on the whole of the situation in Iraq.

Sadam was a big supporter of Al-queida. If not outright financial support, he at the very least provided safe haven to them and allowed them to build training camps. He protected them in his country, he provided them with state support for thier cause and mission. Read that again, he provided state support for them. That is state sponsored terrorism. We know this. It has been proven. There are many witnesses to it and documents to support it as well as most of the competant intelligence agencies around the world agree.

For you to say that we have not significantly weakened al-queida by the removal of Sadam is flat out wrong and you either don't fully understand the whole of the situation here or you have your head in the sand because it supports your particular political leanings. Did you ever stop to consider that instead of one large, well financed, well orgamized terrorist network with state support it has now been reduced to a lot of small, poorly organized and poorly financed groups struggling to find a home. To my way of thinking, that is much better that the situation before.

Either way it really doesn't matter.

It is also very clear here that you have a genuine hatred for the president. Not a strong disagreement of what he is doing, but a deep seeded hatred for the man. In your eyes and to read your notes on this thread and others, this hatred is blinding you to the truth.

I do not know what the root source of this hatred is, nor do I much care. When Bill Clinton was in office, I strongly disagreed whit what he was doing and how he was going about it. I firmly believed that he should have been removed from office for the crimes he committed(by the way lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury would put most people into Federal Big Boy Prison), but there was not a strong feeling of hatred that we are seeing coming from the left against Bush.

It is also very apparant that it does not matter what course of action the President takes, you will firmly believe that it is wrong. It does not matter to you what has been uncovered in Iraq or that the country is being re-born under a democratic rule. It does not matter one bit that the same people that are screaming today that Iraq was a mistake, were screaming just as loudly under Clinton that he should do exactly what Bush has done.

One more though here, not that it will make much difference, those of you out there with this hatred for the president, those of you out there that would seek to see him removed from office, calling him names and wishing he was not there, He is working to keep you and your families safe as well.
Have a nice day!

[post="169620"][/post]​

Fred...I'm reading a very interesting book by a fellow named "John Dean". It's called "Worse than Watergate". Just started it, but it's a very good read. I'd suggest you run by your local library and check it out.

Your wrong about disagreeing with whatever the president wants. I've said numerous times that I supported his actions against the Taliban. I don't support his actions against Iraq. I feel that he's started something that won't be finished in my lifetime. All because he, Cheney and Rumsfeld all felt that they were wiser than the rest of the worlds leaders. FWIW, my family never felt threatened by Iraq.

 

[FredF]

And Which world leaders would that be?

France and Germany. Both countries that had major financial ties to Sadam. These countries, both with large populations that hate/envy the us long before this mess got started. These countries that only sought to gain financially by keeping Sadam in power?

Or do you perhaps mean Russia and Putin? The country that send many advisor to that country and weapons. Another country that had a major financial stake in Sadam and his regeim.

Personally, I would hope that the president and his administration think that they know better how to protect and defend this country than those self serving europeans.

Your family never felt threatened. Did they never fly comercially? Did they never enter those buildings that may have been targeted? What is al-queida's next target and are you sure you were not going to be there?

Was Iraq going to openly attack the US? No way. Were they still a threat? Absolutely. They were a state sponsor of a terrorist organization. While Iraq was feigning innocence and pretending that they had nothing to do with terrorism, state sponsoring of terrorism puts at the very least a burden of responsability back onto the government. By supporting the very organizations that were attacking and plotting to attack our country and citizens, Sadam and the Iraq governemnt were just a guilty as those that committed the actual acts.

If you did not feel threatened by Iraq, you should have.