• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fight Back, Mr. President

Stu Ghatze said:
= ClueLESS
Self explanatory....
Stu Ghatze said:
The majority of Americans SEE exactly what the democratic party is up to, & what they are trying to pull here; & it is about as PHONEY as a three dollar bill..No, strike that...it is even MORE phoney than what John Kerry was in the 04' campaign!:smile:
:2rofll: :2funny: Want to know what Americans are THINKING today according to this week's NBC / Wall Street Journal poll?
Do you think that President Bush gave the country the most accurate information he had before going to
war with Iraq, or do you think that President Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war with
Iraq?

11/05
Gave the most accurate information he had....................... 35
Deliberately misled people to make the case for war....... 57
Not sure.................................................................................... 8
Source: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20051109.pdf

For Bush "the jig is up." The same poll said that 79% of Americans think that Traitorgate is SERIOUS....

I also find it very interesting that the Senators who are now being hailed as the most genuine when it came to voting for or against the Iraq war are those that voted against the war. For the record here are the Senators who got it right....Only one Republican got it right...21 Democrats and one independent Senator.
NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR
 
Old and wise said:
First off, the President has no honor.

Second, he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. He deserted from the National Guard and never learned how to fight. Remember?:rofl

Interesting opinons. Tell us something. Why was Dan Rather forced out at CBS? Here's a hint: It has a little to do with that Natinal Guard thing.
 
scottyz said:
After 9/11 Bush got it setup so he only had to show classified info to 8 hand picked members of Congress. It's completely conceivable the majority didn't get to see the whole picture that is just now being revealed.
evidence please.
 
Stu Ghatze said:
Keep dreaming, ..OH Bush can fight back alright & do you really believe the senate democrats were coerced into voting for the war in Iraq?

If you do YOU better think again, & THEY saw the same intelligence reports, & they drew THEIR own conclusions.

And ..MANY senate democrats, & former president Clinton ALSO gave nice little warm hearted speeches that Sadaam was a serious threat.

Not only that the senate democrats also wanted THEIR OWN RESOLUTION to show for the record how they voted, & why they voted to go to war, & their SOUND bytes, & THEIR own words are now recorded for posterior.

THe country ALSO knows as to why "some" democrats voted for the war resolution too, ..& it was for no other reason than to GRANDSTAND, & TO PRETEND that THEY are tough on terror, & support our military, ..when in fact "some" of them do not give a rats as.s about our military, & even vote AGAINST most funding for weapons systems etc!

So either the democratic party as a whole was serious about going to war with Iraq, ..OR they were nothing but a bunch of g-damn phonies "posturing" because the mainstream MAJORITY supported Bush on it, & the senate democrats were worried they might be committing political suicide IF they did not get on board.

Amazing, ..so now THIS DISINGENUINE behavior is carried forth into MORE DISINGENUINE BEHAVIOR...BY THE DEMOCRATS as an excuse to help undermine Mr. Bush's presidency!

I love it..:2razz: Why Bush made me do it, cause' he must have lied!

Clue: The majority of Americans SEE exactly what the democratic party is up to, & what they are trying to pull here; & it is about as PHONEY as a three dollar bill..No, strike that...it is even MORE phoney than what John Kerry was in the 04' campaign!:smile:

Here, let me help:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
 
Wait, there's more...

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Nancy Pelosi Dec 16, 1998

“For the risks that the leaders of Iraq will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against usor our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

“We should be hell bent on getting those WMDs, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing Saddam Hussein” - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

“Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the U.N. and is building WMD’s and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sep. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Saddam Hussein retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.”
Wesley Clark, Sept. 26, 2002

House Armed Services Committee Testimony.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“Saddam Hussein has since (10/98) embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President the Authority to USE FORCE to DISARM Hussein because I believe that a DEADLY Arsenal of WMD’s in his hands is a Grave Threat to our Security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct. 10, 2002

“Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“It is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

“Saddam Hussein used chemical and biological weapons. He disregarded UN resolutions. His forces fire on American jets. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“We are in possession of compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 CBS Face The Nation

“We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.” Congressional Record Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
 
Simon W. Moon said:
When and where did which senators say this?

I don't understand what your specific evidence for saying "the neocons removed all contrarian evidence from the presentations to the senate" actually consists of.

From http://feinstein.senate.gov/Releases02/r-iraq10.htm:

But the decision to cast this vote does not come lightly. I continue to have serious concerns that there are those in the Administration who would seek to use this authorization for a unilateral, pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

I believe this would be a terrible mistake.

But I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the Administration's approach - turning away from a pre-emptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force.


That is not them saying they were mislead, but them being mislead at the time, given the way it played out.


From http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Releases/r-iraqwmd2.htm


There is no question that Saddam Hussein was truly evil, and his corrupt regime represented a regional danger. But Congress, senior policymakers and the American people were provided information by the Administration, purportedly based on the best available intelligence, that led to a chilling conclusion: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and represented an imminent and potentially catastrophic threat to our country.


That is her saying that she was mislead and we need to investigate.

That took about 10 clicks to get, and I wasn't specifically looking for Feinstein. It is a common view.


As for the other request for backup up of obvious points, I will just say this:

The neocons have been taking the worsecase senerio and pushing it as the likely outcome of inaction in the middle east for a long time - just goto C-SPAN and look for video from Kristol or Perle, it is obvious.
 
KCConservative said:
Wait, there's more...

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Nancy Pelosi Dec 16, 1998

“For the risks that the leaders of Iraq will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against usor our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

“We should be hell bent on getting those WMDs, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing Saddam Hussein” - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

“Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the U.N. and is building WMD’s and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sep. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Saddam Hussein retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities.”
Wesley Clark, Sept. 26, 2002

House Armed Services Committee Testimony.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“Saddam Hussein has since (10/98) embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President the Authority to USE FORCE to DISARM Hussein because I believe that a DEADLY Arsenal of WMD’s in his hands is a Grave Threat to our Security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct. 10, 2002

“Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“It is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

“Saddam Hussein used chemical and biological weapons. He disregarded UN resolutions. His forces fire on American jets. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“We are in possession of compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 CBS Face The Nation

“We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.” Congressional Record Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002






Dear KC, ..I knew all of this, ..& so do the democrats. They prefer just being in denial.

Your admission of proof & verification was very thoughtful, & appreciated...but not really needed as most democrats will ignore the most obvious, especially when they have been in collussion to help destroy Bush's presidency by "whatever" means necessary.

Remember this: With democrats, its always the "seriousness" of the their charges; ..not the proof of their charges & accusations!

Besides, ..what liberal, or prominent democrat wants to see their own hypocrisy exposed soley for political purposes? :smile:

Why?: because they are living in an "alternate reality", & seem to think "THEIR OWN" words should not be held accountable to them!

Not to worry, ..ALL of this will come out after THEY fail again in their quest to undermine the president, the war effort, ..& even moreso....WHEN the 08' campaign starts.

Yes, THEY will DOOM themselves once again, & as usual by THEIR OWN TALKING points!

And...I suspect in even MORE hypocritical fashion than the infamous words; "I voted for the 87 billion dollars for military aid, ..before I voted against it"!

Ahh, does anybody remember the gang that could not ever shoot strait, or was it the "apple dumpling gang"?:smile:
 
Last edited:
Stu Ghatze said:
Dear KC, ..I knew all of this, ..& so do the democrats. They prefer just being in denial.

Your admission of proof & verification was very thoughtful, & appreciated...but not really needed as most democrats will ignore the most obvious, especially when they have been in collussion to help destroy Bush's presidency by "whatever" means necessary.

Remember this: With democrats, its always the "seriousness" of the their charges; ..not the proof of their charges & accusations!

Besides, ..what liberal, or prominent democrat wants to see their own hypocrisy exposed soley for political purposes? :smile:

Why?: because they are living in an "alternate reality", & seem to think "THEIR OWN" words should not be held accountable to them!

Not to worry, ..ALL of this will come out after THEY fail again in their quest to undermine the president, the war effort, ..& even moreso....WHEN the 08' campaign starts.

Yes, THEY will DOOM themselves once again, & as usual by THEIR OWN TALKING points!

And...I suspect in even MORE hypocritical fashion than the infamous words; "I voted for the 87 billion dollars for military aid, ..before I voted against it"!

Ahh, does anybody remember the gang that could not ever shoot strait, or was it the "apple dumpling gang"?:smile:

Hey Stu, since you are such a supporter of the war, I guess you fought it in it right? What branch of the military did you serve in?

If you didn't, why not?
 
Bush fights back...
TOBYHANNA, Pa. -
President Bush strongly rebuked congressional critics of his
Iraq war policy Friday, accusing them of being "deeply irresponsible" and sending the wrong signal both to America's enemy and to U.S. troops.

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said in his most combative defense yet of his rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003.

Bush's charges brought a forceful response from senior Democrats in Congress, who accused the president of misleading the country about the justification for war. Sen.
John Kerry, D-Mass., who ran unsuccessfully against Bush last year, accused the president of playing "the politics of fear and smear."

Bush's speech was part of a coordinated White House effort to bolster the president's waning credibility and dwindling support for the war, in which more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died.

As casualties have climbed, Bush's popularity has dropped. His approval rating now is at 37 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll, an all-time low point for his presidency.

Bush's remarks brought a few jabs from fellow Republicans as well as a sharp counterattack from Democrats.

In a speech in Philadelphia, Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., criticized how the war has been presented to Americans — both by the media and the White House. Afterward, Santorum said the war has been "less than optimal" and "maybe some blame could be laid" at the White House. "Certainly, mistakes were made," Santorum said.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., who is weighing a run for president in 2008, has said he agrees with Democrats who are pressing the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to move forward with an investigation into whether the administration manipulated intelligence.

"I was probably the main driver on the Republican side because I thought we needed the answers to whether intelligence was misused, intentionally or unintentionally," Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald in a story published Friday.

Defending the march to war, Bush said foreign intelligence services and Democrats and Republicans alike were convinced at the time that Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader, had weapons of mass destruction. The
United Nations, he noted, had passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam's development and possession of such weapons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_17;_ylt=AgE_pKJolv4HBtdDKrD2IQcGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--
 
python416 said:
Hey Stu, since you are such a supporter of the war, I guess you fought it in it right? What branch of the military did you serve in?

If you didn't, why not?

I will take that one........21 years 1 month, Vietnam Service and Vietnam Campaign Medals and I would consider it and honor to serve my country again.......

How about you? What did you do in the war?
 
Navy Pride said:
I will take that one........21 years 1 month, Vietnam Service and Vietnam Campaign Medals and I would consider it and honor to serve my country again.......

How about you? What did you do in the war?

I guessed that you served, as I know GySgt did as well. And as I have said before, I very much respect his service, and the same goes for you. Happy Veteran's day (we call it Rememberance Day here in Canada).

I didn't serve and I don't support the war (the way that Bush is running it), and have never been good at doing things I don't believe in anyway - even if I was American.

What I was driving at with ol' Stu was: if he believes so much in the war, then why not join it? And I am just guessing by the way he writes that he is not in the military - call it a hunch. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't have a problem eating crow.

I almost did enter the Canadian forces at one point, but decided to go the civilian route for my short stint in aviation training. Military aviation isn't as appealing in Canada, and since we are never at war, neither is being in the military.
 
Last edited:
python416 said:
I guessed that you served, as I know GySgt did as well. And as I have said before, I very much respect his service, and the same goes for you. Happy Veteran's day (we call it Rememberance Day here in Canada).

I didn't serve and I don't support the war (the way that Bush is running it), and have never been good at doing things I don't believe in anyway - even if I was American.

What I was driving at with ol' Stu was: if he believes so much in the war, then why not join it? And I am just guessing by the way he writes that he is not in the military - call it a hunch. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't have a problem eating crow.

I almost did enter the Canadian forces at one point, but decided to go the civilian route for my short stint in aviation training. Military aviation isn't as appealing in Canada, and since we are never at war, neither is being in the military.


I don't know if Stu served or not but I don't think it is a requirement to have served to support the troops and their mission...I know how much the guys need that support and how good it makes them feel when they know their countrymen are behind them.............I can remember how bad I felt when I was in Viet Nam and some people and the media in this country turned against us and we were told on returning to conus not to wear our uniforms off base because we would be called names and spit on by protestors of the war..........

I don't want to see that happen to our military in Iraq.......
 
python416 said:
I guessed that you served, as I know GySgt did as well. And as I have said before, I very much respect his service, and the same goes for you. Happy Veteran's day (we call it Rememberance Day here in Canada).

I didn't serve and I don't support the war (the way that Bush is running it), and have never been good at doing things I don't believe in anyway - even if I was American.

What I was driving at with ol' Stu was: if he believes so much in the war, then why not join it? And I am just guessing by the way he writes that he is not in the military - call it a hunch. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't have a problem eating crow.

I almost did enter the Canadian forces at one point, but decided to go the civilian route for my short stint in aviation training. Military aviation isn't as appealing in Canada, and since we are never at war, neither is being in the military.
I correspond with seven soldiers. I send them letters, care packages and cash every Friday. We do a lot of talking about this very subject. Frankly, they don't understand people like you, python. You insult them.
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't know if Stu served or not but I don't think it is a requirement to have served to support the troops and their mission...I know how much the guys need that support and how good it makes them feel when they know their countrymen are behind them.............I can remember how bad I felt when I was in Viet Nam and some people and the media in this country turned against us and we were told on returning to conus not to wear our uniforms off base because we would be called names and spit on by protestors of the war..........

I don't want to see that happen to our military in Iraq.......

I believe it is possible to be behind the troops without being behind the civilian leadership of the military. I believe that challanging government is patriotic. I believe that challenging government, to ensure that war is only fought when it needs to be, is supporting the troops. And I don't expect alot of military servicemen to understand that, cause they are patriotic in their duty, and their duty is to execute the policy, not critic it.

But it is going to take some people who are patriotic in their challenging of government to fix this thing. The administration managed to build an environment where people who objected to anything they wanted to do were labelled as "terrorist lovers". Now the screw ups they made and lies they have told have eroded that shield, and people are free to object. And I don't hear anyone saying that they do not support the troops.

But I think it is a DISGRACE for Bush to leverage the troops for political cover, but not surprising. They will stoop to any level in politics. Look at Rove. He has been a dirty player since he got in the game, and he sets the tone for the whole administration.

I believe in peace, but unlike the useless left-wing nuts that suggest the US should cut and run from Iraq, I believe the exit straitgy needs to be more productive and future policy needs to be smarted than the policy that got the US into Iraq. I believe that the only way to get there is to get some "check and balance" going again in the congress. I believe the only way to get that is to have people object to the way the administration disabled those checks, lied to the people, and have screwed things up since they got in office.

We need change!
 
KCConservative said:
I correspond with seven soldiers. I send them letters, care packages and cash every Friday. We do a lot of talking about this very subject. Frankly, they don't understand people like you, python. You insult them.

I don't remember insulting a troop ever. Please show me when.

It is possible to be against the administration and not be against the troops. Bush and company say that isn't the case, because they are exploiting them for political cover. But if you cannot object to US policy without being against the troops, then you are saying that the administration in power is always right.

From a soldiers point of view, the administration is the leadership of the military and they are always right. So if Stu was in the military (which is were this started), then I could understand his steadfast support of Bush. But it felt like he wasn't in the military, in which case, I though asking him why not was a reasonible question.
 
python416 said:
I don't remember insulting a troop ever. Please show me when.

It is possible to be against the administration and not be against the troops. Bush and company say that isn't the case, because they are exploiting them for political cover. But if you cannot object to US policy without being against the troops, then you are saying that the administration in power is always right.

From a soldiers point of view, the administration is the leadership of the military and they are always right. So if Stu was in the military (which is were this started), then I could understand his steadfast support of Bush. But it felt like he wasn't in the military, in which case, I though asking him why not was a reasonible question.
I actually just heard an interesting response to the can you be anti-war while still supporting the troops yesterday by a classmate. His father, who is serving in Iraq, convinced him that if he was truely supporting the troops, he would be anti-war and try to get the war done with as soon as possible. Just an idea that is always floated around, but this time by someone who is serving.

Anyway, you can be for ending the war and still not support the president. Just because I don't support Bush does not mean taht I do not support the troops and keeping them alive. Why would I want those who serve our country ill? It doesn't make sense. They do their job so that we are safe at home, and even if they are used wrongly, they are still doing their job. Now onto Navy...who hasn't changed his colors since I left about a month ago.

Navy Pride said:
I don't know if Stu served or not but I don't think it is a requirement to have served to support the troops and their mission...I know how much the guys need that support and how good it makes them feel when they know their countrymen are behind them.............I can remember how bad I felt when I was in Viet Nam and some people and the media in this country turned against us and we were told on returning to conus not to wear our uniforms off base because we would be called names and spit on by protestors of the war..........

I don't want to see that happen to our military in Iraq.......
Navy, get this through your head. The 60's and 70's are over. This doesn't happen anymore. We have evolved as a society and as a peace movement. We realize that soldiers don't do the job they do because they want to kill, but rather because they want to serve their country honorably. When one soldier does something bad, we realize that it was that one soldier and does not reflect on the whole. The whole is a good core group of people and we love them for what they do for our country. This isn't Nam in the sense that soldiers are treated badly back home-this is Iraq where they are treated like royalty at home because the people realize how precious the service that they provide is. Welcome to a new age Navy, where we value our dead, our living and our retired soldiers more than before.
 
In his first real rebuttal to all of the "run up to war" charges, the president said this:

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said in his most combative defense yet of his rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003.

Consider this: Do you honestly think that Bush would say this if there was a shred of evidence to the contrary? In other words, he wouldn't put this statement out there if he thought it could come back to haunt him later. The left is eager to regain political power in 2006 and 2008. Trumping up baseless charges, they believe, is the only way to accomplish it. I'm glad the president is showing some ire here. It's time the lies stopped.
 
KCConservative said:
In his first real rebuttal to all of the "run up to war" charges, the president said this:

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said in his most combative defense yet of his rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003.

Consider this: Do you honestly think that Bush would say this if there was a shred of evidence to the contrary? In other words, he wouldn't put this statement out there if he thought it could come back to haunt him later. The left is eager to regain political power in 2006 and 2008. Trumping up baseless charges, they believe, is the only way to accomplish it. I'm glad the president is showing some ire here. It's time the lies stopped.
It is time the lies stop? Are you kidding me? He messed up. He won't change his mind. He won't even admit to one, not many, one, mistake in doing the Iraq war. He is just trying to get the national media attention away from the Democrats and back onto him.

And as to whether he would say that...he doesn't have to run again. It is that simple. He was more careful in the 2000-2004 time because he had to be because he wanted to be reelected. Now, he could care less. He has to watch what he says, but I don't think he realizes this and the fact that Rove is distracted with his own problems, has made matters worse for keeping Repubs in a good light.
 
ShamMol said:
Anyway, you can be for ending the war and still not support the president. Just because I don't support Bush does not mean taht I do not support the troops and keeping them alive. Why would I want those who serve our country ill? It doesn't make sense.

And yet, your very words do cause your country ill. Trumping false charges and helping to divide this country on a political level directly aids and abets our enemy. They see the inner turmoil and, no doubt, rachet up the offense which, in turn, kills our brave men and women on the battlefield. If our country were united in ideology and honesly interested in winning the war, there is no enemy that would dare take us on. This, quite possibly, could be over by now.
 
ShamMol said:
It is time the lies stop? Are you kidding me? He messed up. He won't change his mind. He won't even admit to one, not many, one, mistake in doing the Iraq war.
And as soon as you present a shred of evidence on this, it's blathering lies. Tell us, what does "messed up" mean? And please, don't come back with Michael Moore or MoveON talking points. The're laughable.
 
KCConservative said:
And yet, your very words do cause your country ill. Trumping false charges and helping to divide this country on a political level directly aids and abets our enemy. They see the inner turmoil and, no doubt, rachet up the offense which, in turn, kills our brave men and women on the battlefield. If our country were united in ideology and honesly interested in winning the war, there is no enemy that would dare take us on. This, quite possibly, could be over by now.
You choose to respond to that part of the argument but not the rest...fine. But I am still yet to see proof, not rethoric, that this speech does inflame tensions. Do they pick up a copy of the NY Times each day-no. Point being, show me proof and I might agree with you.

It would not be over right now. The country is in turmoil, not because the Bush administration screwed up (though that is certainly part of it), but because the country is going through a radical change that some are resisting. Your argument, in fact, could be used to say that all Iraqis should be with the terrorists and not trying to help the new Democracy-because they should be united as a front, etc. Don't you get it...dissent and discussion is part of a democracy and there is infighting there too. It is true here, it is true in Iraq, except they do their fighting with guns and not words.
 
KCConservative said:
And as soon as you present a shred of evidence on this, it's blathering lies. Tell us, what does "messed up" mean? And please, don't come back with Michael Moore or MoveON talking points. The're laughable.
I don't watch Michael Moore, I have never been to Moveon. Your points are laughable because you see in this forum exactly what I mean by messed up. His administration, to start, messed up, yes messed up, the amount of troops necessary to take and hold the country because Rummy was so focused on reducing the size of the military and transforming it. That was their first mistake. Their second main mistake has been to go into Fallujah. That could have been resolved in other ways but instead the Bush administration decided it would be better to go in with guns blazing and loose a ton of American and Iraqi lives. I can go on about actual wars things they did wrongly, but I could also go into using old evidence to prove a case, and all those things. They aren't talking points, just plain facts that I choose to see as mistakes, and you choose to see as normal for Republicans.

you say you want me to present evidence when you didn't provide any to prove your statements. That is what we call hypocrisy.
 
ShamMol said:
Do they pick up a copy of the NY Times each day-no.

No, they have something better than the Times. It's called Al-Jazeera. Don't you know they love seeing Boxer and Kerry and Kennedy spreading these lies. They think they have this divided country on the ropes. The divison trumped up by the left kills our soldiers.
 
ShamMol said:
His administration, to start, messed up, yes messed up, the amount of troops necessary to take and hold the country because Rummy was so focused on reducing the size of the military and transforming it. That was their first mistake. Their second main mistake has been to go into Fallujah. That could have been resolved in other ways but instead the Bush administration decided it would be better to go in with guns blazing and loose a ton of American and Iraqi lives. I can go on about actual wars things they did wrongly, but I could also go into using old evidence to prove a case, and all those things.

:spin:

Those are wonderful opinions, sham. Tell me, is there anything you have to back them up? Furthermore, how's that impeachment coming?
 
KCConservative said:
No, they have something better than the Times. It's called Al-Jazeera. Don't you know they love seeing Boxer and Kerry and Kennedy spreading these lies. They think they have this divided country on the ropes. The divison trumped up by the left kills our soldiers.
Actually, you have me intrigued, but once again I will gripe. Respond to everything I say, not just little tidbits you find fascinating. In an actual debate, you would be dead in the water points-wise because you only choose to make one point while ignoring others.

Now, the intriguing part is this-how many times a day do they show American politics on al-Jazeera? Seriously, I really like seeing these types of things. But honestly, let's face it, we see their politicians arguing as well, whether it be over when to ask the US to get out (I kid) or what the makeup of their government should be...etc. Basically, does that embolden the terrorists too? Should we make them stop that?
 
Back
Top Bottom