Terrorist Trained in Iraq

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
We did when we voted, Bill. That's how it works. Try again in 08.

I'm not going to argue with you hear. But trying again will start this fall, not in 08!

 

[KCConservative]

I'm not going to argue with you hear. But trying again will start this fall, not in 08!

Interesting. You consider president disatisfaction when voting in the mid-terms ?

 

[ProudAmerican]

We had a balanced budget for the first time since Alexander Hamilton under Clinton. What do we have now?

now we have a major war on global terror thats actually being fought and having MONEY spent on it.

its easy to balance the budget when you raise taxes and ignore the things money has to be spent on in order to make us safe.

I bet those 3,000 families think that balanced budget was a GREAT thing.

and again, a FACT that cant be disputed, the current economy is just as good or better than it was under Clinton.....and we dont even have a tech boom to thank for it.

 

[Hoot]

You've seen what a disaster the Republicans have been. Do you actually want more of that? Because of these bullshit neocon's, the US is now the most hated nation in the world. We used to be respected. After WWII, we actually had some semblance of nobility. That's all gone now because of Bush. We had 8 good years with Clinton. Wouldn't you like to have some more good years? What we got now is garbage. Nothing but a garbage government.

This is off the subject, but at a recent world youth hockey tournament in Canada, whenever the U.S. players would touch the puck, the stadium booed loudly. Since the first U.S. game was against a Canadian team, many attributted this to national fervor.

However, when the U.S. played a Russian team in the next game, they were booed just as loudly. This had never happened before in one of these tournaments.

What else can you attribute this to, other then the policies of Bush? We are more hated now, world-wide.

 

[Hoot]

and again, a FACT that cant be disputed, the current economy is just as good or better than it was under Clinton.....and we dont even have a tech boom to thank for it.

I don't see how anyone can have confidence in the economy with the obscene debt this President has created? The bill will come due soneday.

 

[KCConservative]

I don't see how anyone can have confidence in the economy with the obscene debt this President has created? The bill will come due soneday.

Yeah, had Bush not planned and executed 9/11 or was to blame for devestating natural disasters, we clearly wouldn't be in such bad shape.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Yeah, had Bush not planned and executed 9/11 or was to blame for devestating natural disasters, we clearly wouldn't be in such bad shape.

Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you address what he said?

We had a balanced budget with Clinton. And because of this war costing us
5 billion a month, sooner or later, that will have an impact on our economy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Hoot:
This is off the subject, but at a recent world youth hockey tournament in Canada, whenever the U.S. players would touch the puck, the stadium booed loudly. Since the first U.S. game was against a Canadian team, many attributted this to national fervor.

However, when the U.S. played a Russian team in the next game, they were booed just as loudly. This had never happened before in one of these tournaments.

What else can you attribute this to, other then the policies of Bush? We are more hated now, world-wide.

China is thought of more favorably than we are now.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
now we have a major war on global terror thats actually being fought and having MONEY spent on it.

That's the problem.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
its easy to balance the budget when you raise taxes and ignore the things money has to be spent on in order to make us safe.

Were a lot less safe now than we were then. Haven't you heard Bin Laden's latest?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I bet those 3,000 families think that balanced budget was a GREAT thing.

Why don't you ask the 100,000 dead Iraqis?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
and again, a FACT that cant be disputed, the current economy is just as good or better than it was under Clinton.....and we dont even have a tech boom to thank for it.

We had 8 straight years of growth under Clinton. We don't have that now. So its not the same. Is it?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Interesting. You consider president disatisfaction when voting in the mid-terms ?

I said it will start in 2006!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I like to think of elections as the "ultimate poll"

I'll agree with you here.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

now we have a major war on global terror thats actually being fought and having MONEY spent on it.

its easy to balance the budget when you raise taxes and ignore the things money has to be spent on in order to make us safe.

I bet those 3,000 families think that balanced budget was a GREAT thing.

and again, a FACT that cant be disputed, the current economy is just as good or better than it was under Clinton.....and we dont even have a tech boom to thank for it.

Actually, the current economy is strong, but not as strong as it was under Clinton. Under Clinton, poverty rates were the lowest in America History. Median income rose every year.

Under Bush, the poverty rate has risen every single year. Median income has been flat for the longest period in American history. Income at the top has grown, but income at the Middle Class has been flat for 5 years. In fact, over the past 2 years, adjusted for inflation, its actually dropped slightly.

We have strong economic growth, but that growth was far more evenly distributed in the 90s than it is today.

 

[KCConservative]

Under Bush, the poverty rate has risen every single year. Median income has been flat for the longest period in American history. Income at the top has grown, but income at the Middle Class has been flat for 5 years. In fact, over the past 2 years, adjusted for inflation, its actually dropped slightly.

Linky-poo ?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Linky-poo ?

Is this what they call intelligent design?

 

[ProudAmerican]

That's the problem.

no, thats the SOLUTION.

Were a lot less safe now than we were then. Haven't you heard Bin Laden's latest?

youre kidding right? sounded to me like ole binnie boy was asking us to call a truce. hes getting his ass handed to him and is ready to quit. but Ill just take your word for it that nothing is being acomplished in the war on terror.

Why don't you ask the 100,000 dead Iraqis?

while I care about the Iraqis, I wouldnt trade one single American civilian for a hundred thousand of them.
I am much more concerned with the safety of my fellow Americans here at home.
and give me a source for your figure if you dont mind. forgive me if I dont take your word for it.

We had 8 straight years of growth under Clinton. We don't have that now. So its not the same. Is it?

as has already been mentioned, the president has had a lot to deal with in his terms.....but our economy is BOOMING. unemployment is THE SAME AS IT WAS UNDER CLINTON.

stop being a partisan hack. I give Clinton credit for the great economy we had under him. Be intelectually honest and give Bush the same credit.

I hate people who BLINDLY TOW THE PARTY LINE. (yeah yeah green party, i know, i know)

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
no, thats the SOLUTION.

Spending 5 billion a month on this bullshit war is a solution?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
youre kidding right? sounded to me like ole binnie boy was asking us to call a truce. hes getting his ass handed to him and is ready to quit. but Ill just take your word for it that nothing is being acomplished in the war on terror.

You cannot have a war against an ideology. Their is no clear enemy and no clear ending. If you disagree, then state how we know when to celebrate the equivelant of VE Day or VJ Day?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
while I care about the Iraqis, I wouldnt trade one single American civilian for a hundred thousand of them.
I am much more concerned with the safety of my fellow Americans here at home.
and give me a source for your figure if you dont mind. forgive me if I dont take your word for it.

100,000 Iraqi lives = 1 American life? I am ashamed to call you my countryman.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
as has already been mentioned, the president has had a lot to deal with in his terms.....but our economy is BOOMING. unemployment is THE SAME AS IT WAS UNDER CLINTON.

stop being a partisan hack. I give Clinton credit for the great economy we had under him. Be intelectually honest and give Bush the same credit.

I hate people who BLINDLY TOW THE PARTY LINE. (yeah yeah green party, i know, i know)

I've already posted my kudo's for the President on jump-starting the economy. I will give him that.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Linky-poo ?

Sure I have plenty and they are all government statistics too. I just started a thread on the subject here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=205025#post205025

Its completely sourced.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat
Sure I have plenty and they are all government statistics too. I just started a thread on the subject here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showth...025#post205025

Its completely sourced.

Very good SD. I wonder what KC will say now.

 

[Stinger]

My point is they are not a reliable source on this issue.

This is a baseless assertion on your part. The Weekly Standard is a well respect news/political journal. They have their reputation to uphold just as any other major news magazine. Your attempts to dismiss thier reporting on such baseless assertions is absurd and shows you can't hold your ground on it's own merits.

This has had no mention whatsoever in the mainstream news.

Yes there has been but at as far as overall...........well DUH, the so-called mainstream media has made no secret of their slant on the war and the bias in their reporting.

The Weekly Standard is a very neo-conservative publication. It has published on numerous occasions that “unnamed government sources” are reporting that they have found stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

No actually they do a lot of named and sourced reporting on those matters and their reporting stands.

As we all know, despite the fact that they have reported that numerous times, it has never turned out to be the case.

If you are going to make such indictments then I'm sure you have clear examples. Time to back up your assertions.

They have simply no credibility at all on Iraq.

Once again your dismisal are not conviencing.

When a major news organization starts to validate their claims, then this probably will have some credibility.

http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/opinion/11376657225180.xml&coll=3
Conservative sources such as The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal editorial page have jumped all over the new evidence. But they aren't the only ones. Newsweek magazine, which could never be accused of conservative leanings, posted on its Web site several weeks ago a series of Pentagon slides summarizing solid intelligence about the nefarious Saddam-terrorism connections.
For example, in 1998: "Zawahiri visits Baghdad and meets with Iraqi vice president." Ayman al-Zawahiri is the No. 2 man in al-Qaida -- the guy who frequently is seen on videotape making threats against the United States. He's the guy an American drone aircraft tried to kill with a bomb last week that killed at least 18 people.
In 1999: "IIS Iraqi Intelligence Service officials meet OBL bin Laden in Afghanistan; additional contacts through Iraq's embassy in Pakistan."
And, after a host of such reports, the official "findings" page lists these conclusions:
-- "More than a decade of numerous contacts."
-- "Multiple areas of cooperation."
-- "Shared anti-U.S. goals and common bellicose rhetoric."
-- "Shared interest and pursuit of WMD."
-- "Some indications of Iraqi coordination with al-Qaida specifically related to 9/11."
All of this was from a Pentagon report in 2002.
*****************************************

The same editorial also notes that the independent 9/11 commission found the same.

If you want to view the actual slides at Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10652305/site/newsweek/

This is what Hayes is reporting on, so much for your baseless assertions.

Just the same, even if we find out that Saddam operated terrorist training camps,

We knew it before we are confirming it now.

it still may not justify the invasion of Iraq.

It was one of the justifications then, it was one of the justifications when Clinton made his removal the official policy of the United States. It was a KEY reason.

A great deal of questions would have to be answered.

No they don't , these are just attempts now to "qualify", sorry that don't work.

Were those supposed terrorist training camps training terrorists to hit Israel, or the U.S?

Doesn't matter

Did that present a greater risk that the ultimate terrorist training camp that our presence has created in Iraq?

Doesn't matter.

Just the same, it’s all very, very speculative. As there is no evidence at all that any of this is true.

A statement which flys in the face of the facts.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Spending 5 billion a month on this bullshit war is a solution?

your refusal to see progress in the war on terror because of blind partisanship is a hoot. nothing I can say will change the mind of a partisan hack that would be jumping for joy if the same progress were being made by a liberal in charge.

You cannot have a war against an ideology. Their is no clear enemy and no clear ending. If you disagree, then state how we know when to celebrate the equivelant of VE Day or VJ Day?

the fact that they dont wear a uniform and dont salute a commander doesnt make islamic terrorists any less of a real threat. these people can be defeated, as long as people are in charge that dont want to tuck tail and run like cowards.

100,000 Iraqi lives = 1 American life? I am ashamed to call you my countryman.

I never once thought of you as my countryman to begin with.

I've already posted my kudo's for the President on jump-starting the economy. I will give him that.

am i supposed to applaud here? you posted kudos for the obvious. BRAVO!!!!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
your refusal to see progress in the war on terror because of blind partisanship is a hoot. nothing I can say will change the mind of a partisan hack that would be jumping for joy if the same progress were being made by a liberal in charge.

Uh, PA, wake up, you were dreaming again.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
the fact that they dont wear a uniform and dont salute a commander doesnt make islamic terrorists any less of a real threat. these people can be defeated, as long as people are in charge that dont want to tuck tail and run like cowards.

So you won't answer the question? Talk about "...run like a..."

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I never once thought of you as my countryman to begin with.

So you're not an American! What country are you from?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
am i supposed to applaud here? you posted kudos for the obvious. BRAVO!!!!

That wasn't the point. The point was I proved you wrong. You said I wouldn't say anything nice about Bush and the economy when in fact I have. But since you are more pre-occupied with shooting your mouth off and listening to yourself talk, you spend less time getting your facts straight and accurate.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Uh, PA, wake up, you were dreaming again.

nope. blind partisanship is easy to spot.

So you won't answer the question? Talk about "...run like a..."

I answered it. It just wasnt the yellow bellied, cowardly, response you would have felt more comfortable with.

So you're not an American! What country are you from?

sure I am.....but Id rather not associate with blind partisans that would rather allow an entire nation to suffer at the hands of a murdering madman than to have a little backbone and do something about the problem.

But since you are more pre-occupied with shooting your mouth off and listening to yourself talk, you spend less time getting your facts straight and accurate.

if anyone on this site should know what that looks like, its you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
nope. blind partisanship is easy to spot.

I know it's convenient to label me like you do. I was a Republican for 20 years. I voted for Reagan twice. I am not a Democrat. Yet, you think I'm a blind partisan. Funny.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I answered it. It just wasnt the yellow bellied, cowardly, response you would have felt more comfortable with.

Hate to burst your bubble boy, but you didn't tell me how this war would specifically end.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
sure I am.....but Id rather not associate with blind partisans that would rather allow an entire nation to suffer at the hands of a murdering madman than to have a little backbone and do something about the problem.

Really, but you have know problem about the murdering madmen the CIA has helped put into power. How about the murdering madmen and their death squads we put back in power in Kuwait? That's not exactly a democracy there. What about what we did to the democratically elected government of Nicaragua? What about all the innocent people that were killed as a result of our involvement in Chille? How about the innocent people that died as a result of our funding in El Salvador?

Your lame rap on madman arguement doesn't wash for the simple fact that we knew he was a madman 20 years ago when he was our ally. We did nothing then.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
if anyone on this site should know what that looks like, its you.

You can think anything you want to big boy. But I'm the one who has posted links and sources to back up what I say. You have not done that.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I know it's convenient to label me like you do. I was a Republican for 20 years. I voted for Reagan twice. I am not a Democrat. Yet, you think I'm a blind partisan. Funny.

being a blind partisan doesnt only mean you are only for a certain group. it can also mean you are only AGAINST a certain group. I have no doubt in my mind if the current war on terror were being run by a liberal, your views would be very different. I also know mine WOULDNT be. claim to be middle of the road all day long. actions speak much louder than words.

Hate to burst your bubble boy, but you didn't tell me how this war would specifically end.

as soon as I consult dionne warwick, Ill get back with you. and I got your boy.

Really, but you have know problem about the murdering madmen the CIA has helped put into power.

you wouldnt have a clue about that since we have never discussed it. but thanks for assuming. nice!!!

How about the murdering madmen and their death squads we put back in power in Kuwait?

I would have no problem with dealing with those guys the same way. but we both know you would hate it. stop trying to look hawkish. your actions clearly show you have no problem with any government killing innocent civilians.

What about what we did to the democratically elected government of Nicaragua?

feel free to start a thread about this one as well. Id be glad to discuss it. lets just say your (as usual) wrong!!

What about all the innocent people that were killed as a result of our involvement in Chille? How about the innocent people that died as a result of our funding in El Salvador?

again, a great topic for a thread. feel free to start one. all of these topics you are bringing up are great. lets discuss them.

Your lame rap on madman arguement doesn't wash for the simple fact that we knew he was a madman 20 years ago when he was our ally. We did nothing then.

we agree!!!!! we waited much too long to deal with him. better late than never. the lame notion that since we didnt take care of the problem decades ago means we never should have is truly pathetic.

You can think anything you want to big boy

thanks. again, i wasnt going to ask for permission. calm down man. lets have an intelligent exchange without name calling and insults. there really isnt a need for it.

But I'm the one who has posted links and sources to back up what I say. You have not done that.

like the one proving weve killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians!!!!! yeee hawwwww.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
being a blind partisan doesnt only mean you are only for a certain group. it can also mean you are only AGAINST a certain group. I have no doubt in my mind if the current war on terror were being run by a liberal, your views would be very different. I also know mine WOULDNT be. claim to be middle of the road all day long. actions speak much louder than words.

It's too bad you can't prove the "no doubts" in your mind.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
as soon as I consult dionne warwick, Ill get back with you. and I got your boy.

Duck and run. Still have not answered the question on how specifically the War on Terror will end in order to prove my assertion that you can't have a war against an ideology.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
you wouldnt have a clue about that since we have never discussed it. but thanks for assuming. nice!!!

I only have a clue about things we have personnally discussed. Interesting.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
I would have no problem with dealing with those guys the same way. but we both know you would hate it. stop trying to look hawkish. your actions clearly show you have no problem with any government killing innocent civilians.

That wasn't the point. Your trying to justify the US taking Hussein from power just 10 years after we put an equivelant Hussein-like regime back in power in Kuwait. Yet, that's OK to you.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
feel free to start a thread about this one as well. Id be glad to discuss it. lets just say your (as usual) wrong!!

I doubt if you would answer any questions there either. Duck and run.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
again, a great topic for a thread. feel free to start one. all of these topics you are bringing up are great. lets discuss them.

See comment above. Duck and run.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
we agree!!!!! we waited much too long to deal with him. better late than never. the lame notion that since we didnt take care of the problem decades ago means we never should have is truly pathetic.

That wasn't the point. You said he's a bad guy so we had to take him out 20 years later after we helped him get really bad by selling him all those arms.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
thanks. again, i wasnt going to ask for permission. calm down man. lets have an intelligent exchange without name calling and insults. there really isnt a need for it.

So why make comments like this:

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
nothing I can say will change the mind of a partisan hack

Incidently, post where I called you a name.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
like the one proving weve killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians!!!!! yeee hawwwww.

OK, here you go...

The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all
More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage?
Scott Ritter Monday November 1, 2004 The Guardian

The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1340562,00.html

Here's a few more...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/111503B.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061203D.shtml

The War's Toll on Iraqi Civilians
By Jefferson Morley washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 21, 2004; 9:01 AM

But no matter which news sources you read or how you play with the numbers, the consensus of international commentators is that the U.S. military may have replaced Saddam Hussein as the biggest threat to Iraqi civilians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37968-2004Sep21.html

Now where's your links, Roy Clark (or is it Buck Owens).