06-16-2003, 06:34 AM
| |||
| |||
| "Drifting toward fascism..."
Here is an opinion piece from a Wisconsin paper. Can you see that this is happening to our democracy? [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or
Register Now] Mentioned in the piece is : describing a "system of government....invades and conquers a sovereign country by fabricating military intelligence as a pretext for invasion, then, declares "liberation" as its real intention all along as it expropriates that nation's oil fields?" I'd like to know if it matters to you the changing of the justification for invading Iraq. Or do some of you believe that Bush lied: soldiers died?? __________________ [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]  |
|
06-16-2003, 06:13 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
It's simple, Bush sent the troops there, and America wants the oil. I hope deep down in the President's heart he really also wanted to free the Iraq people from Saddam, but who can really say what he thinks. I hated to see Americans losing lives over this. __________________ Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 06.18.2003 Save 15% off of your purchase at Art.com with coupon code C162600955516. |
|
06-16-2003, 09:18 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
It's one think for jwelch to spout all the anti-Bush crap that she does, but it is disheartening to see people actually buying into it. Quote:
Quote:
The article that Jwelch posted is (like most of her sources) a bunch of crap. It's a series of accusations where the truth is twisted to suit the author's desired outcome. It's easy to accuse (as Jwelch well knows), but takes much more effort to debunk the accusation. THINK about each accusation before you buy into it. Think about the author's motivations. Edited on 8/28/03 to remove duplicate text caused by server problem. __________________ Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 08.31.2003 Save 10% off of your purchase at Art.com with coupon code C160344369417. Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 08.31.2003 Click through to save $5 off of your $65 or more first purchase in the dvd/video department at Buy.com. Last edited by jeskibuff; 08-28-2003 at 10:43 PM. |
|
06-17-2003, 04:05 AM
| ||||
| ||||
Madison WI, Berkley CA, and Cambridge MA should be sold off to the French
__________________ www.healthwell.com |
|
06-17-2003, 04:43 AM
| |||
| |||
|
Jeskibuff: This administration is so secretive that to prove (to your satisfaction) that Bush DID lie will be difficult. Investigations are discouraged, stymied, derailed. Remember the 9-11 investigation? Cheney had strong words to Daschle (who was the majority leader of the Senate, at the time) words that discouraged a deep investigation, due to "national security." In any event, the 9-11 investigation has been essentially bankrupt by the low funds allocated for its work. (I think I read it has been given $3 million ). Would you consider that the deaths of 2,000+ of greater importance than a sexual affair by Bill Clinton? ( well over $50 million to investigate his personal life). Let's consider the Enron scandal: the investigation didn't get Kenny-Boy, given his close association with Bush. Cheney's secretive energy meetings: he never did cough up the papers, did he? WHERE'S DISCLOSURE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION, Jeskibuff? Is everything done of such a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY? No, it's basically covering the a---- of the most corrupt administration in the history of our country. And I'm truly encouraged to read that others here question Bush's truthfulness. Jeskibuff: Bush's exaggeration of the Iraq threat to our country IS a LIE, a LIE causing the deaths of over 5,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (and the number grows, as food and clean water is lacking in the "liberated" country) [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or
Register Now] (this site may load slowly, but it documents all known deaths of Iraqi civilians). I HOPE and PRAY that Bush, for once in his shallow life, will be held MOST ACCOUNTABLE.... __________________ [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] |
|
06-17-2003, 04:46 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
All I can think as re-election garbage starts is, remember 911 and that the man responsible is still free(whatever happened to those great photo ops and speeches that we heard about that evil-doer). Maybe I just don't understand the whole political picture, but wouldn't it be easier to be re-elected if we had actually FOUND Saddam and Bin-Ladin. __________________ Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 06.18.2003 Save 15% off of your purchase at Art.com with coupon code C162600955516.
__________________ Sometimes when we are generous in small, barely detectable ways it can change someone else's life forever. Margaret Cho, weblog,  |
|
06-17-2003, 05:18 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Do you think it's a simple matter of locating a fugitive in this big world of ours? Look at Eric Rudolph. He successfully eluded authorities for 5 YEARS and he never strayed far from his local area in North Carolina. With Saddam and bin Laden, you have thousands (if not millions) of sympathizers in the Arab world willing to hide them. You have many places to hide (Afghan caves, outlaw Pakistani villages, Baghdad homes and secret bunkers). We'll probably catch Saddam BEFORE bin Laden, as he had a lot of people who hate him and are willing to "rat" him out, whereas bin Laden is a hero to many Muslims. Terrorism extends beyond these 2 people. Al-Queda is being targeted everyday and we're hearing regular reports of people being captured and/or killed. Saddam has been ousted from his position of power and that means he no longer can direct his energies and his nation's wealth to the manufacture and distribution of deadly weapons. Bin Laden's network is being diminished which means they will have less opportunity to attack. The important thing is to eliminate the threat of terrorism, and that is what Bush is doing. Nabbing Osama will be a good thing, but there are other capable terrorists who are willing to fill his shoes. If we nabbed both of them and promptly executed them, terrorism would NOT be eradicated from this earth and the U.S. would not be exempt from future terrorist attacks. Maybe we would feel better that we "got him", but it took more than just Osama to bring down those towers. In short, is it a bigger priority to nab the leader of the pack and make us feel better or to disable the pack so that we NEVER see another 9/11? Bush hen, you have thousands (if not millions) of sympathizers in the Arab world willing to hide them. You have many places to hide (Afghan caves, outlaw Pakistani villages, Baghdad homes and secret bunkers). We'll probably catch Saddam BEFORE bin Laden, as he had a lot of people who hate him and are willing to "rat" him out, whereas bin Laden is a hero to many Muslims. Terrorism extends beyond these 2 people. Al-Queda is being targeted everyday and we're hearing regular reports of people being captured and/or killed. Saddam has been ousted from his position of power and that means he no longer can direct his energies and his nation's wealth to the manufacture and distribution of deadly weapons. Bin Laden's network is being diminished which means they will have less opportunity to attack. The important thing is to eliminate the threat of terrorism, and that is what Bush is doing. Nabbing Osama will be a good thing, but there are other capable terrorists who are willing to fill his shoes. If we nabbed both of them and promptly executed them, terrorism would NOT be eradicated from this earth and the U.S. would not be exempt from future terrorist attacks. Maybe we would feel better that we "got him", but it took more than just Osama to bring down those towers. In short, is it a bigger priority to nab the leader of the pack and make us feel better or to disable the pack so that we NEVER see another 9/11? Bush has got the formula down right, except when it comes to Israel (IMO). __________________ Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 06.18.2003 Save 15% off of your purchase at Art.com with coupon code C162600955516. Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 06.20.2003 Right now at Target.com, get FREE shipping on all LeapPad books! Last edited by jeskibuff; 06-17-2003 at 06:08 AM. |
|
06-17-2003, 07:17 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
I don't think its a simple matter, but then I didn't go babbling on about the evil doers in the middle of the devastation,if Bush couldn't produce the results he should never have placated the American Public by promises. Personally I don't know who I would vote for, its hard because all politician give you this family values stuff, and none of them are really very good family men or women.
__________________ Sometimes when we are generous in small, barely detectable ways it can change someone else's life forever. Margaret Cho, weblog, |
|
06-17-2003, 07:59 AM
| |||
| |||
|
Jeskibuff: I don't understand what you are saying. Are you being flippant? Bin Laden exists, Saddam exists: how does THAT relate to the LIES that Bush told about the urgency to invade Iraq? What Bush is doing now is justifying the Invasion and resulting chaos by saying: see, Saddam was bad, he's gone, and... BUT, Saddam has not been captured and remains a loose cannon (along with Bin Laden; but not together; Bin Laden reportedly detests Saddam). In a speech yesterday in NJ, Bush carefully avoided using the phrase Weapons of Mass Destruction. He berated the history revisionists, but BUSH HIMSELF is the GREATEST revisionist OF ALL!! Jeskibuff, I'm sure that you remember the cowboy president and his bluster concerning Bin Laden: you know, the "smoke 'em out", "dead or alive." BUSH DID NOT DELIVER ON HIS THREAT, AND THAT MATTERS. So, what happens then? Why, on to Iraq!! Insinuate a LINK between 9-11 and Iraq: yes, Bush did that very thing several times in his pre-INVASION SOTU speech. Hammer the threat of Saddam's weapons!! WMDs, yeah, that's the ticket : they've got them, they are threatening our nation! BUT, UN weapons inspectors can't find them! Well, we'll bomb them into revealing themselves! Oops, sorry 5,000+ dead civilians, but we LIBERATED you! Love us! Submit to our will: we know what's best for you and your OIL! Saddam's gone; aren't you happy? This is by NO MEANS over. Iraq is becoming a QUAGMIRE, largely because Bush had NO PLAN for POST-INVASION Iraq. But what DID Bush know? He delared this INVASION; BOTH of them (Afghanistan, too) ; he's responsible. The CIA and FBI cautioned him that Iraq might not be the threat that called for a pre-emptive INVASION. Does Bush only wear the flight suit of Commander-In-Chief when things go right? And I REALLY question the rightness of the Iraq INVASION. g the phrase Weapons of Mass Destruction. He berated the history revisionists, but BUSH HIMSELF is the GREATEST revisionist OF ALL!! Jeskibuff, I'm sure that you remember the cowboy president and his bluster concerning Bin Laden: you know, the "smoke 'em out", "dead or alive." BUSH DID NOT DELIVER ON HIS THREAT, AND THAT MATTERS. So, what happens then? Why, on to Iraq!! Insinuate a LINK between 9-11 and Iraq: yes, Bush did that very thing several times in his pre-INVASION SOTU speech. Hammer the threat of Saddam's weapons!! WMDs, yeah, that's the ticket : they've got them, they are threatening our nation! BUT, UN weapons inspectors can't find them! Well, we'll bomb them into revealing themselves! Oops, sorry 5,000+ dead civilians, but we LIBERATED you! Love us! Submit to our will: we know what's best for you and your OIL! Saddam's gone; aren't you happy? This is by NO MEANS over. Iraq is becoming a QUAGMIRE, largely because Bush had NO PLAN for POST-INVASION Iraq. But what DID Bush know? He delared this INVASION; BOTH of them (Afghanistan, too) ; he's responsible. The CIA and FBI cautioned him that Iraq might not be the threat that called for a pre-emptive INVASION. Does Bush only wear the flight suit of Commander-In-Chief when things go right? And I REALLY question the rightness of the Iraq INVASION. g the phrase Weapons of Mass Destruction. He berated the history revisionists, but BUSH HIMSELF is the GREATEST revisionist OF ALL!! Jeskibuff, I'm sure that you remember the cowboy president and his bluster concerning Bin Laden: you know, the "smoke 'em out", "dead or alive." BUSH DID NOT DELIVER ON HIS THREAT, AND THAT MATTERS. So, what happens then? Why, on to Iraq!! Insinuate a LINK between 9-11 and Iraq: yes, Bush did that very thing several times in his pre-INVASION SOTU speech. Hammer the threat of Saddam's weapons!! WMDs, yeah, that's the ticket : they've got them, they are threatening our nation! BUT, UN weapons inspectors can't find them! Well, we'll bomb them into revealing themselves! Oops, sorry 5,000+ dead civilians, but we LIBERATED you! Love us! Submit to our will: we know what's best for you and your OIL! Saddam's gone; aren't you happy? This is by NO MEANS over. Iraq is becoming a QUAGMIRE, largely because Bush had NO PLAN for POST-INVASION Iraq. But what DID Bush know? He declared this INVASION; BOTH of them (Afghanistan, too) ; he's responsible. The CIA and FBI cautioned him that Iraq might not be the threat that called for a pre-emptive INVASION. Does Bush only wear the flight suit of Commander-In-Chief when things go right? And I REALLY question the rightness of the Iraq INVASION.g the phrase Weapons of Mass Destruction. He berated the history revisionists, but BUSH HIMSELF is the GREATEST revisionist OF ALL!! Jeskibuff, I'm sure that you remember the cowboy president and his bluster concerning Bin Laden: you know, the "smoke 'em out", "dead or alive." BUSH DID NOT DELIVER ON HIS THREAT, AND THAT MATTERS. So, what happens then? Why, on to Iraq!! Insinuate a LINK between 9-11 and Iraq: yes, Bush did that very thing several times in his pre-INVASION SOTU speech. Hammer the threat of Saddam's weapons!! WMDs, yeah, that's the ticket : they've got them, they are threatening our nation! BUT, UN weapons inspectors can't find them! Well, we'll bomb them into revealing themselves! Oops, sorry 5,000+ dead civilians, but we LIBERATED you! Love us! Submit to our will: we know what's best for you and your OIL! Saddam's gone; aren't you happy? This is by NO MEANS over. Iraq is becoming a QUAGMIRE, largely because Bush had NO PLAN for POST-INVASION Iraq. But what DID Bush know? He declared this INVASION; BOTH of them (Afghanistan, too) ; he's responsible. The CIA and FBI cautioned him that Iraq might not be the threat that called for a pre-emptive INVASION. Does Bush only wear the flight suit of Commander-In-Chief when things go right? And I REALLY question the rightness of the Iraq INVASION. Where are the WMDs? Where's Saddam? Will there be SS in 10-15 years for Baby Boomers?? {BUSH thoughts}: Hey, can't there be a BREAKING NEWS story to get them off my back? Daddy said he'd take care of any heat in my life! Can I go home now??? |
|
06-17-2003, 09:29 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Well, at least we've made a little step forward with your admission that this is an "opinion piece". It's a start. Personally, I'm keeping an open mind on this one (yes, I know you're glad to hear it, jwelch). Unlike you, I'm considering the possibility that perhaps the intelligence itself was faulty and not manipulated by the evil Bush administration. Of course, that assumes that there are no WMD's. On the other hand, the thing that amazes me is that all of the anti-war people were willing to give the UN weapons inspectors unlimited time with no deadlines to find the WMD's before the war. Now, however, you expect immediate results from the search in a matter of a couple of months. Do I smell a little double-standard here? __________________ Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 06.18.2003 Save 15% off of your purchase at Art.com with coupon code C162600955516.
__________________ Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription is more cowbell! |
|
06-17-2003, 10:15 AM
| |||
| |||
|
Monkee: Recently Bush said Iraq probably had a weapons PROGRAM. See how that differs from the more ominous sounding WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I have read that bit that you citied: anti-war people expect instant results from the US search for WMDs. But, in fairness, much of this is redundant, isn't it? These sites have been searched and searched again. Kinda like the claim during the Florida debacle: votes counted again and again....I remember THAT sound-byte... Here's the thing, monkee: Bush cited SPECIFIC threats, the forged Niger letter, the aluminum tubes...and HE KNEW that these were FALSE CLAIMS. He was told this, but went ahead, sounding the alarm to the American people. He fanned the flames of an INVASION, Bush and his announcements, at odds with the FBI more cautious statements. It's HIS CALL, ULTIMATELY, the BUCK stops at HIS PRESIDENTIAL desk, HE's THE C-I-C...he wears the flight suit... |
|
06-17-2003, 10:32 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
I give up. There's just no having an intelligent debate with someone whose mind is so closed off to any and althe FBI more cautious statements. It's HIS CALL, ULTIMATELY, the BUCK stops at HIS PRESIDENTIAL desk, HE's THE C-I-C...he wears the flight suit... [/B][/QUOTE] Oops, my mistake, you were there when all these things were told to him? Because, again, you are you stating this as a fact, not what you believe. It's good to know that you witnessed all this first-hand. I give up. There's just no having an intelligent debate with someone whose mind is so closed off to any and all possibilities that don't mesh with your personal agenda.
__________________ Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription is more cowbell! |
|
06-17-2003, 11:03 AM
| |||
| |||
| [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or
Register Now] {Speaking of the supposed purchase of uranium from Africa by Saddam} : ...the intelligence agency {CIA, not FBI, in this case} informed the WH on March 9, 2002...could not confirm European intelligence reports that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium..."Despite the CIA's misgivings, Bush said in his State of the Union speech {2003} "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quanitities of uranium in Africa." Bush was told otherwise 10 MONTHS EARLIER, by the CIA, that these claims could not be confirmed. He WENT AHEAD, and told the American people an unverified claim. Later in the article, it is said that the CIA report was sent to many agencies and the WHITE HOUSE on the SAME DAY. __________________ Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 06.18.2003 Save 15% off of your purchase at Art.com with coupon code C162600955516. Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: Check out the latest rebates available on great computer products at Buy.com. [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] |
|
06-17-2003, 12:27 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
And that same article also says the following: On last Sunday's television talk shows, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the White House was unaware of the CIA's doubts. "Maybe someone knew in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery," she said on NBC. The CIA's March 2002 warning about the Niger connection was just one in a daily flood of diplomatic and intelligence reports on Iraq, and it's possible that Rice never saw it. and However, the inclusion of the uranium story in Bush's speech appears to support charges that some pro-invasion officials ignored intelligence that could hurt the administration's case that Saddam was pursuing nuclear, chemical and bcircles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery," she said on NBC. The CIA's March 2002 warning about the Niger connection was just one in a daily flood of diplomatic and intelligence reports on Iraq, and it's possible that Rice never saw it. and However, the inclusion of the uranium story in Bush's speech appears to support charges that some pro-invasion officials ignored intelligence that could hurt the administration's case that Saddam was pursuing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. So then isn't it possible that the president himself wasn't the one doing the manipulating of the evidence (always assuming, of course, that any manipulating was done at all)? __________________ Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 06.18.2003 Save 15% off of your purchase at Art.com with coupon code C162600955516. Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 07.31.2003 Save 20% off of your purchase at ICE.com with coupon code BCD20-759580.
__________________ Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription is more cowbell! |
 | ||||
| ||||
| |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
I think the "preview reply" has a problem!
DealofDay Coupons
Linear Mode
