Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!

[sentrido]

Did Hussein MEET DIRECTLY with each hijacker? Did he have a DIRECT handshake with them? Not sufficiently proven to politically say yes. But, there is a mountain of evidence, which I have cited the tip of, showing a material support for Al Qaeda, the 9/11 hijackers, and numerous other terrorists. EVEN A CARTER LIBERAL JUDGE ruled that there was sufficient MATERIAL evidence of this link that he ruled in favor of 9/11 victim's families in a 100+ MILLION lawsuit.

sorry, Is this one clearer:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

As for as that civil suit you keep quoting:

"In his written decision, Judge Baer noted that the experts' testimony was largely hearsay, and presented few actual facts connecting al-Qaida and Iraq. But he said the experts, quote, "provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al-Qaida and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al-Qaida's criminal acts."

hmm......... inferences......

And what does who the judge was appionted by have to do with anything?

 

[KCFlyer]

A10pilot....imagine if you will...it's 9/11 1998 and two aircraft fly into the World Trade Center...an attack on US soil. It's discovered that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden are responsible for the attacks. So president Bill Clinton orders an attack on Iraq to get rid of the potential threat of their weapons of mass destruction. What's your stance? Bear in mind it was a liberal Democrat who made the exact same move. Was it good, or was his thinking clouded by the intern on his Johnson. Are you just as supportive as you are of Bush's actions?

 

[A10Pilot]

A10pilot....imagine if you will...it's 9/11 1998 and two aircraft fly into the World Trade Center...an attack on US soil. It's discovered that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden are responsible for the attacks. So president Bill Clinton orders an attack on Iraq to get rid of the potential threat of their weapons of mass destruction. What's your stance? Bear in mind it was a liberal Democrat who made the exact same move. Was it good, or was his thinking clouded by the intern on his Johnson. Are you just as supportive as you are of Bush's actions?

Trying to follow your line of reasoning.

Did Clinton FIRST tackle the Taliban and Al Qaeda's foothold in Afghanistan? Did he THEN pursue the threat posed by Iraq and their WMD and terrorist connections? If so, Yes I would support it. This would be the first battle against terrorists. Iraq is just another front - as we have had many fronts in wars before.

This is a Global War On Terror. I had a conversation with my brother about what we would be facing after the 9/11 attacks. I told him this was the new Cold War. That it would be DECADES long. That it was the start of World War III and it would be like no other war. We did not have what Clautswitz called the "Center Of Gravity" of a Nation-State. We had no standing army. We would be facing a fanatical web of suicidal killers with no respect for life. And the threat would be magnified beyond anything we have known before because of the devastating power of WMD. This is not WMD in the hands of a nation-state knowing its own destruction would be assured if it was used. This is WMD in the hands of terrorists willing to die in their delivery. Iraq had shown its willingness to support terrorists with camps in country. It had delivered material and monetary support to terrorists actions against Israel. They had shown and continued to show no respect for a laundry list of UN Resolutions demanding they disarm. We could not sit back and allow them to pass their WMD into the hands of terrorists. They refused to comply with UN Resolution 1441, which among other things demanded they prove the destruction of their known WMD and WMD development.

A10 Pilot

 

[TWAnr]

The ONLY thing that matters concerning the election of the President is the Electoral College (Reference: US Constitution. Read it sometime). The map shows how widespread in the country the support for Bush was - not just pockets of super-cities like NY, LA, Chicago. And not just in rural areas. Counties with cities of significant sizes all over the US supported President Bush. When you see it in map form it really demonstrates this.

The Supreme Court did not 'select' the President. The President was duly elected by the Electoral College as per the US Constitution. Unlike Nixon vs Kennedy, where Nixon spared the nation the horrendous angst a fruitless challenge would bring, Gore and his operatives chose the opposite. Despite the initial result showing a Bush WIN. A LEGAL recount showing a Bush WIN. Another LEGAL recount showing a BUSH WIN. And finally, another LEGAL recount showing a BUSH WIN.

It is pointless to debate you, since all you do is repeat the same old mantra.

However, I will make two points and get off the pulpit.

One, you are the one who posted numbers which were totally irrelevant to the election of the president in an effort to convince the rest of us of the legitimacy of Bush's selection by the Supreme Court. I posted the popular vote count in response to your irrelevant tally of square miles and counties where the Shrub was favored, even though he lost the popular vote.

Two, there was never a complete manual recount in Florida. Rerunning the vote count using suspect card readers, optical scanners and computer programs, subject to tampering, is not a recount regardless of what you or Katherine Harris would have us believe.

 

[Hog1]

KCFlyer and All ...I see the problem here. You are probably nice folks that have been misleading for years about fact and fiction! The difference betweens yourselves and A-10Pilot (and myself) is your source of information. Like you, I for years trusted and assumed the media was telling the truth and lay out the facts without bias. My profession is also as pilot for the last 24 years and I figure I know something about the profession. Just before the 91 Gulf War, I had been getting suspicious of various reports dealing with aviation. Quite simply.... they were wrong, uneducated, and misleading. That caused me to think a bit. If the media can’t get it right on things I am somewhat an expert on? ...Then what about all the other subjects that I am not? Are the equally as bias and wrong? It did not take long for me to find out. As fighter pilot in the Golf War I learned much! One of the most alarming bits was that the media has absolutely NO clue what they are talking about. Worse! They put an anti American, anti military, Americans are evil slant on everything! I was sworn into the military and now served over 21.5 years. I am supposed to defend our country against ALL enemies foreign and domestic! Since 91, I have come to believe and see who the domestic ones are. If you are getting your wisdom and Intel from ABC, NBC, CBS, and the leader of them all CNN, then I ask you to take a good look at yourselves in the mirror. Are you getting the real poop? Are you a friend or foe? If it is the later, and you have such heartburn with a stand-up president and a country who believe all should be free? ...Then leave.....FAST!!! I have served overseas and impressed that Americans and their country are looked on in two ways. One, how can we become like Americans, or how can we move there. The other was unfortunately jealousy because they were not willing to provide freedom to all and wanted to try and maintain the class structure and hierarchy. In the Gulf War I got to speak to some POWs who were truly nice people! They wanted to come to America! They wanted the freedom we have! Guess what? ...They are getting it! I, like the A-10 pilot have served in the Middle east not to long ago. This is indeed a scary and volatile area! But you know what? It has been that way for centuries! ..Without any US involvement. Because your Intel comes from the media, you are under the impression that it is less safe now! Get yourselves above the politics and your hate for President Bush! That entire region is significantly more safe and becoming prosperous. If you insist on going the hate route? ...if you insist on doing what ever it takes at the expense of our men and women in the military? ...if you insist on continuing to sell out our freedom and who we are as a country? ...Go ahead.... It is a free country ...for now! Vote against a president who does have the “Big Picture”! ...Who is not afraid to DO what is right despite back stabbing cheating governments like France and Germany. I ask you; however, to remember why this country is great and free! It is not because of any other countries help, world opinion, or strategy. Our country is great because it allows conversations like this, imagination, creativity, and the freedom to use it. Please don’t be fooled and lead by the media! If enough folks continue down this path? If the media continues it’s successful assaults on America? ..It is not Iraq that will be dealing with civil war ...bit America. Oh ..and one last and real fact/thought! One Nation Under GOD!!! God Bless America and thank you for your service to a grateful nation A-10 Pilot!

 

[KCFlyer]

A10pilot.,..allow me to make it easier to understand. Given the exact same circumstances - if Clinton were president and had the WTC attacked and then attacked Iraq because they were a "major player" in global terrorism, would you be supportive of that cause because a liberal democrat started it, or would you go back on the "Clinton was more interested in blowjobs" argument and claim that he was 100% wrong? I'm a Republican. But I adamantly oppose what our president has done. I just didn't think that made me a Liberal Democrat overnight. Too bad that you will blindly follow the leader because he has an elephant logo by his name on the ballot. I plan on voting for the person who I feel will be better for the United States and the world. Since Bush is the one running on the Republican ticket, and I will not vote for someone I strongly disagree with, I will do what I can to get his opponent in office.

 

[sentrido]

There are so many outlets to get news and information now(internet,cable,radio,international tv,pundits,cspan,here even), the whole bull about the liberal media is craped on.
Finding both sides of a story are not that hard anymore if one tries.

None of you have told me anything I dont already know. My point of view wasnt handed to me.

I came to have my opinions on my own. Just like you.

My dislike of president Bush's Politics goes beyond the war in Iraq. And even if I agreed with the war there, I would not be voting for him.

Thank you Hog, A10, and anybody else who serves our country bravely.If my opinions insult you, I am sorry. Please beleive me when I say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you.

 

[A10Pilot]

One, you are the one who posted numbers which were totally irrelevant to the election of the president in an effort to convince the rest of us of the legitimacy of Bush's selection by the Supreme Court. I posted the popular vote count in response to your irrelevant tally of square miles and counties where the Shrub was favored, even though he lost the popular vote.

For the last time, President Bush was duly ELECTED by the Electoral College as directed by the US CONSTITUTION. The popular vote does not determine the winner. The State view of the election process is far more relevant (please read the US Constitution - winning individual states determines the winner - NOT popular vote). The county by county view gives even a more detailed picture of how widespread nationwide Bush's support was. A bunch of supercities with high populations centers supported Gore. He couldn't even carry his home state.

Two, there was never a complete manual recount in Florida. Rerunning the vote count using suspect card readers, optical scanners and computer programs, subject to tampering, is not a recount regardless of what you or Katherine Harris would have us believe.

There WERE manual recounts after the fact by all kinds of news organizations including the NY Times. Guess what? When applying the standard as set by Florida Statute - BUSH WON!

But, that doesn't matter. There is a process directed by the state on how recounts are done. The law was followed and BUSH WON EVERY TIME. Similar processes were conducted in many states because of the close nature of the election. Get over it - Gore lost. Bush Won. He was ELECTED not 'selected', despite your snide condescending 'shrub' remarks and 'subject to tampering' comments.

Remember - if Gore could have just carried his OWN state he would have won. Pathetic.

Too bad that you will blindly follow the leader because he has an elephant logo by his name on the ballot.

I don't 'blindly follow' anyone. I vote for the person with whom I agree on the issues of greatest concern. Where in anything I have said you would think I don't use knowlege and intellect for my choices in life is beyond me.

I am sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. My concern is the safety and security of the United States. If Zell Miller, democrat, were running against Lincoln Chafee, republican - I would choose Zell Miller.

A10 Pilot

 

[sentrido]

What is interesting/alarming about the 2000 election (I dont care to debate the outcome) Is the fact that the US supreme court basically decided that the recount standards failed the equal protectin clause(which is debatable, but not relavant to my point) but also that the state of florida didnt have the time to resolve this issue on its own, which is not true(There are long standing procedures in place to deliver electorial votes to congress late). Really a whopping blow to states rights. How do you conservative kids feel about that?

 

[TWAnr]

The county by county view gives even a more detailed picture of how widespread nationwide Bush's support was. A bunch of supercities with high populations centers supported Gore.

The Shrub's victory was so widespread that he got fewer votes than his opponent received. 🙄

By the way, in a series of rulings culminating in 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the concept of "One man, one vote." City folk votes are entitled to no less weight than of those who live in rural areas. (Baker v. Carr, 1962;Wesberry v. Sanders, 1963; Reynolds v. Sims (Alabama), and
Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, 1964)

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

I don't 'blindly follow' anyone. I vote for the person with whom I agree on the issues of greatest concern. Where in anything I have said you would think I don't use knowlege and intellect for my choices in life is beyond me.

Last Century there had been many people in a country in Europe that elected a President whom they believed and they vote for the person with whom they agreed on the issues of their greatest concern.

Today we know that this person lied, accused and blinded millions of people. Look at the results of WWII

What is our current President doing so different today. I don’t think very much. He lied about WMD, connected a country to Global Terrorism when they where just a threat to them self and got us into a war that is not necessary. He should have stayed on the course to find OBL and deal with Afghanistan and real terrorism. Instead we are fighting a two and more front war.

His interest to go to war with Iraq had different reasons than what he wants us to believe.

I feel for our troops and we have to support them. It is not their fault and decision where they have to go. They follow orders and we have to support them morally. Politically we have the obligation to make our concerns public during the upcoming election and I am convinced that the majority will ask the current President to go and retire. To say it in Donald’s words: “You’re fired!â€￾

 

[TWAnr]

Too bad the son did not read his father's memoirs:

“Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.â€￾

President George Herbert Walker Bush

 

[delldude]

What is interesting/alarming about the 2000 election (I dont care to debate the outcome) Is the fact that the US supreme court basically decided that the recount standards failed the equal protectin clause(which is debatable, but not relavant to my point) but also that the state of florida didnt have the time to resolve this issue on its own, which is not true(There are long standing procedures in place to deliver electorial votes to congress late). Really a whopping blow to states rights. How do you conservative kids feel about that?

well i read about it right here...and i'm sure you won't agree....
must read for democrats

 

[Fly]

Obviously the two polar opposites will never meet....same here. We shall all know what happens in November. No reason to debate this one....but I betcha there won't be too many "fence sitters" this time......or even too many people throwing away their votes on anyone other than Bush or Kerry. Not this time! We have paid the price of it with the botched election. Good to know that in some places, the vote is worth more (i.e. - Palm Beach). BTW, Palm Beach is loaded with Jewish people who usually vote Democrat, should be interesting to see what they do 😉 I can name 9 people I know who didn't vote last time but are definitely voting this time (and they are ALL in Palm Beach, all Jewish and all hate Bush) My guess is that Bush Jr is going to follow in his daddy's footsteps again B)

 

[TWAnr]

well i read about it right here...and i'm sure you won't agree....

Weren't you able to find an even more partisan site than the American Thinker? Yes, they do pretend to be neutral, but a quick perusal of their articles and links exposes their true agenda.

🙄