Anybody else pissed off?

[jboyd2004]

So we shouldnt invade, we should just "deal" with every country, like we rule the world?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The UN NEEDS to deal with it or disband. Why even impose regulations if you're not going to back it up. The US should deal with threats to our national security. If that means invading when diplomacy has failed, I guess that is the way it will have to be.

[vtodd82]

I am not suggesting that you should not fight for our country.  You need to fight and die for your unit, period.  That IS NOT THE POINT.

 

The point is, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, until We attacked- fact.  Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.  Fact.  Bush says so-NOW.  So does the 9/11 commission.

 

There may be Al Qaeda in Iraq now as you say, but they WERE NOT there before we attacked.  This is fact.

 

Because of these FACTS, we should have never gone to Iraq in the first place- That is the point. 

 

Again, Iraq HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11.  It was Al Qaeda, not Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would guess Bush truly believed Iraq had WMDs based on the Intel he received from his aids.

So should we go to every other country that MIGHT have WMDs? Or every other country that has terrorist that are against us?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

invade, NO. delt with, yes. Bush is doing that now. that wasn't bushs intent in Iraq. DIPLOMACY FAILED! so we went in and took him out. were mistakes made. of course the ****ing were, its a god damn war!

I'm so sick and tired of these threads and the same liberal bullshit. they just don't understand and I don't think they ever will

BUSH NEVER STATED SADDAM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, SO QUIT USING THAT AS A F'N EXCUSE TO CALL HIM A LIAR.

SADDAM AT ONE TIME HAD WMDS AND NEVER PROVED HE GOT RID OF THEM, PERIOD!!! EVERY F'N INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD THOUGHT HE STILL HAD THEM!!

THE WAR ON TERRORISM ISNT' JUST AL'QUEDA AND OSAMA!!!!!!!!!!

 

yes, iraq is completely ****ed up right now and the post war plan sucked ass. bush did not do a good job there, but that is not a reason not to have gone in.

 

I love how you guys pick and choose shit out of the 9/11 report. you know it also said Saddam planned to start up chemical/biological weapons programs as soon as the inspectors were out and the 'eye' of the world was off him?

 

do you also forget about the SEVENTEEN UN resolution that saddman IGNORED! Bush was the only president with enough backbone to stand up for the world and enforce them. by the way, MANY MANY weapons were found that were classified in the resolutions as weapons saddam COULD NOT HAVE!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my kind of man 383, keep on truckin

[d_a_n_payne]

A lot of stuff is being said, not much being proven.

[davechevyss]

I am not suggesting that you should not fight for our country.  You need to fight and die for your unit, period.  That IS NOT THE POINT.

 

The point is, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, until We attacked- fact.  Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.  Fact.  Bush says so-NOW.  So does the 9/11 commission.

 

There may be Al Qaeda in Iraq now as you say, but they WERE NOT there before we attacked.  This is fact.

 

Because of these FACTS, we should have never gone to Iraq in the first place- That is the point. 

 

Again, Iraq HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11.  It was Al Qaeda, not Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would guess Bush truly believed Iraq had WMDs based on the Intel he received from his aids.

So should we go to every other country that MIGHT have WMDs? Or every other country that has terrorist that are against us?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

invade, NO. delt with, yes. Bush is doing that now. that wasn't bushs intent in Iraq. DIPLOMACY FAILED! so we went in and took him out. were mistakes made. of course the ****ing were, its a god damn war!

I'm so sick and tired of these threads and the same liberal bullshit. they just don't understand and I don't think they ever will

BUSH NEVER STATED SADDAM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, SO QUIT USING THAT AS A F'N EXCUSE TO CALL HIM A LIAR.

SADDAM AT ONE TIME HAD WMDS AND NEVER PROVED HE GOT RID OF THEM, PERIOD!!! EVERY F'N INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD THOUGHT HE STILL HAD THEM!!

THE WAR ON TERRORISM ISNT' JUST AL'QUEDA AND OSAMA!!!!!!!!!!

 

yes, iraq is completely ****ed up right now and the post war plan sucked ass. bush did not do a good job there, but that is not a reason not to have gone in.

 

I love how you guys pick and choose shit out of the 9/11 report. you know it also said Saddam planned to start up chemical/biological weapons programs as soon as the inspectors were out and the 'eye' of the world was off him?

 

do you also forget about the SEVENTEEN UN resolution that saddman IGNORED! Bush was the only president with enough backbone to stand up for the world and enforce them. by the way, MANY MANY weapons were found that were classified in the resolutions as weapons saddam COULD NOT HAVE!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and remember that sadam was wiping out a bunch of men women and children in the north with dirty bombs

[emperor72]

1. Israel currently is in violation of 68 UN resolutions, including several relating to their nuclear weapons. But we like Israel, so that dosent count right?

 

2. The 9/11 commission is not the be-all end-all on Iraq. The Duelfer report is however. This report, which is the final word says that Saddam had nothing, and was not trying to get anything since 1991. Thats right, 1991. The latest revision of this report was released this week. Please dont take my word for it, look it up yourself on the government websites.

 

3. Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. This happened in 1988. That is several years before the FIRST gulf war. He clearly did not use them since then.

 

In addition, guess who sold Saddam those weapons in the 1980's? Thats right, WE DID!

 

Would you like to see a pic of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam during that deal? Its pretty easy to find, just Google it.

 

So in summary:

 

Saddam used chem weapons which we sold him, against his own people 20 years ago.

 

Israel has 4 times the resolutions that Iraq does.

 

EVERY report and inspection has found that Iraq had no connection with 9/11, and had no weapons program.

[vtodd82]

1. Israel currently is in violation of 68 UN resolutions, including several relating to their nuclear weapons.  But we like Israel, so that dosent count right?

 

2.  The 9/11 commission is not the be-all end-all on Iraq.  The Duelfer report is however.  This report, which is the final word says that Saddam had nothing, and was not trying to get anything since 1991.  Thats right, 1991.  The latest revision of this report was released this week.  Please dont take my word for it, look it up yourself on the government websites.

 

3.  Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people.  This happened in 1988.  That is several years before the FIRST gulf war.  He clearly did not use them since then. 

 

In addition, guess who sold Saddam those weapons in the 1980's?  Thats right, WE DID!

 

Would you like to see a pic of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam during that deal?  Its pretty easy to find, just Google it.

 

So in summary:

 

Saddam used chem weapons which we sold him, against his own people 20 years ago. 

 

Israel has 4 times the resolutions that Iraq does.

 

EVERY report and inspection has found that Iraq had no connection with 9/11, and had no weapons program.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that all sounds really good , and much of it is very much so valid points, but can you honestly say that george bush is such an evil man, that he would take a whole country to iraq over personal issues, and let alone still have the majority of the greatest nation in the world trust in him, not likely. I know somebody who knows bush, he knew him before he was a president. in fact he had barbaques with bush. he says that george is a normal guy like you and me, down to earth. if you have ever been in some sort of leadership position, you should absolutely know that the boss is always gonna take shit. always, no question about it. the leader is always knit picked. i dont care how good of a leader you are, or how charismatic you are, not everybody is gonna like you, and will find something to stir up. lastly, dont tell me , you have never been day dreaming(prior to iraq) and wondered how safe our country is, and iraq and saddam didnt flash through your mind, along with maybe n. korea, or china. i know its happened, dont lie . and as far as isreal goes, please dont start on them. i dont give a shit what the UN says about iraq, isreal, north korea, or whatever, i have no confidence in the UN i have met some of those guys, and every last one of them was a disrespectul, arrogant moron. in my opinion, isreal is a good ally of ours, and they need military might, with all this bullshit they are dealing with, being sorrounded with islamic jihads who will kill any infidel in alahs name. go around and take your own poll. ask people 2 years ago, what countries they were afraid of. isreal is not gonna be a winning country. do the same poll now. people arent gonna be afraid of iraq as far as national security goes, and they still wont be afraid of isreal. please dont mistake me for a die hard bush loving hes an angel supporter, because iam not. i will support him though, because i think hes doing whats right. just like that quote somebody said earlier- "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." Remember that. We cant sit around with our thumbs up our asses, and be sensitive to everything like the liberals, or we are doomed, not just america, but eventually the world(unless you wanna be a muslim)

[emperor72]

I never said that Bush is some evil, viscious guy. I only siad he is a liar. Apparently, that is too difficult of a concept to accept, since the only rebuttal that I seem to get either involves Clinton, or 9/11.

 

I am simply making points that are difficult to refute. If Iraq is a threat because of 17 UN resolutions, why isnt Israel with 68?

 

Im sure Bush is a nice guy. Im sure he is fun at parties. That does not mean he is a good choice to run this country. In fact, by all objective measures, this country, under his leadership, has been run into the crapper.

 

Maybe you can talk to him about it the next time youre at his house.

[emperor72]

Sorry if that was harsh. There is just not alot of logic behind that kind of thinking.

 

Everyone seems to think that "liberals" cant defend the country. I dont see where liberal or conservative even entered into this discussion?

 

Bush has lied to us. He is the president, therefore he is accountable. Period.

 

Check this out:

 

WW 1: US entered in 1917 under Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat

 

War ended during Wilson’s term in 1918

 

 

 

WW 2: US entered in 1941 during Roosevelt’s (FDR) term. FDR was reelected for a fourth term in 1944, the only President in History to serve more than 2 terms

 

Germany was defeated in the Spring of 1945 and Japan was defeated after 2 atomic bombs were dropped under Harry S. Truman, a Democrat.

 

 

 

Korean War: US entered the war in June 1950 under Truman, a Democrat. The United Nations passed a resolution calling this a police action and many countries fought against the North Koreans and the Chinese.

 

War ended by Truce in 1953, four months after Eisenhower, a Republican, was inaugurated

 

 

 

Vietnam War: Eisenhower, a Republican, sent several hundred military advisors to Vietnam in the 1950’s following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

 

Jack Kennedy, a Democrat, increased military advisors to the thousands in the early 1960s’

 

Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, increased the strength to over 500,000 men in country. I believe he did this to show the Republicans that the Democrats could be tough on Communism. This was at the height of the Cold War.

 

Richard Nixon, a Republican, won the 1968 election and immediately began negotiations with the Vietnamese. He stretched this process out until after he was reelected in 1972, when the war ended.

 

American presence ended in 1975, during Gerald Ford’s (Republican) presidency (Nixon resigned in disgrace to avoid an impeachment for obstruction and other charges)

 

 

 

Gulf War: Bush 41, a Republican, put together a true coalition to attack the Iraqi’s who had invaded Kuwait in 1990. It took 100 hours to beat the Iraqi’s and Bush 41 and Colin Powell decided not to go to Baghdad because of the difficulty urban fighting. At the time there were over coalition 500,000 troops there.

 

 

 

Iraq War: In Richard Clark’s and Paul (?? Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury) books, they say that Bush 43 was obsessed with taking down Saddam because he had planned to assassinate Bush 41 after he left office

 

 

 

 

 

· Also, most Presidents send the troops someplace early in their first terms to show the world that they are tough. Over the last century, these places include Grenada, Somalia, Lebanon, Costa Rica. These were generally short term activities, although Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon in 1982 after over 200 Marines were killed by a car bomb.

 

 

 

Looks to me like democrats have historically done a pretty good job of defending the country.

 

Again, sorry to be harsh.

[vtodd82]

Sorry if that was harsh.  There is just not alot of logic behind that kind of thinking.

 

Everyone seems to think that "liberals" cant defend the country.  I dont see where liberal or conservative even entered into this discussion?

 

Bush has lied to us.  He is the president, therefore he is accountable.  Period.

 

Check this out:

 

WW 1:              US entered in 1917 under Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat

 

                        War ended during Wilson’s term in 1918

 

 

 

WW 2:              US entered in 1941 during Roosevelt’s (FDR) term.  FDR was reelected for a fourth term in 1944, the only President in History to serve more than 2 terms

 

                        Germany was defeated in the Spring of 1945 and Japan was defeated after 2 atomic bombs were dropped under Harry S. Truman, a Democrat.

 

 

 

Korean War:      US entered the war in June 1950 under Truman, a Democrat.  The United Nations passed a resolution calling this a police action and many countries fought against the North Koreans and the Chinese.

 

                        War ended by Truce in 1953, four months after Eisenhower, a Republican, was inaugurated

 

 

 

Vietnam War:    Eisenhower, a Republican, sent several hundred military advisors to Vietnam in the 1950’s following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

 

                        Jack Kennedy, a Democrat, increased military advisors to the thousands in the early 1960s’

 

                        Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, increased the strength to over 500,000 men in country.  I believe he did this to show the Republicans that the Democrats could be tough on Communism.  This was at the height of the Cold War.

 

                        Richard Nixon, a Republican, won the 1968 election and immediately began negotiations with the Vietnamese.  He stretched this process out until after he was reelected in 1972, when the war ended. 

 

                        American presence ended in 1975, during Gerald Ford’s (Republican) presidency (Nixon resigned in disgrace to avoid an impeachment for obstruction and other charges)

 

 

 

Gulf War:          Bush 41, a Republican, put together a true coalition to attack the Iraqi’s who had invaded Kuwait in 1990.  It took 100 hours to beat the Iraqi’s and Bush 41 and Colin Powell decided not to go to Baghdad because of the difficulty urban fighting.  At the time there were over coalition 500,000 troops there.

 

 

 

Iraq War:          In Richard Clark’s and Paul (?? Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury) books, they say that Bush 43 was obsessed with taking down Saddam because he had planned to assassinate Bush 41 after he left office

 

 

 

 

 

·        Also, most Presidents send the troops someplace early in their first terms to show the world that they are tough.  Over the last century, these places include Grenada, Somalia, Lebanon, Costa Rica.  These were generally short term activities, although Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon in 1982 after over 200 Marines were killed by a car bomb.

 

 

 

Looks to me like democrats have historically done a pretty good job of defending the country.

 

Again, sorry to be harsh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no offense taken. to each their own. i will still try to persuade any liberal mind of the "other" point of view though. to me, this has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. if i had my way, zell miller would be the president, who is a democrat. the only reason i tend to vote republican, is that i am a NRA member, and I like no gun laws, dont believe in abortion, and want the consitution to remain as close to its original state as possible. ur just missing my point. i believe in KISS- keep it simple stupid. of course correct intelligence is a must, but everybody and their mother has had fears of saddam and his bathe regime doing something horrific. i honestly dont know anybody, who hasnt prior to iraq war, had some sort of national security fear of saddam and iraq, whether its terroristic acts or bio/chem, or whatever. maybe your the first, i dont know . the guy was a crazy dictator. in fact saddam thought himself to be a relative of King Nebacunezzar and that he should rule the whole world. i also know that saddam DID have wmd recently. i know what the 9/11 report says, but every iraqi infantryman i encountered had gas masks, and i was told by higher officials that this is only because it was not to protect them from our gas, but to protect them from their own gas used on us.

[jboyd2004]

[emperor72]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

invade, NO. delt with, yes. Bush is doing that now. that wasn't bushs intent in Iraq. DIPLOMACY FAILED! so we went in and took him out. were mistakes made. of course the ****ing were, its a god damn war!

I'm so sick and tired of these threads and the same liberal bullshit. they just don't understand and I don't think they ever will

BUSH NEVER STATED SADDAM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, SO QUIT USING THAT AS A F'N EXCUSE TO CALL HIM A LIAR.

SADDAM AT ONE TIME HAD WMDS AND NEVER PROVED HE GOT RID OF THEM, PERIOD!!! EVERY F'N INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD THOUGHT HE STILL HAD THEM!!

THE WAR ON TERRORISM ISNT' JUST AL'QUEDA AND OSAMA!!!!!!!!!!

 

yes, iraq is completely ****ed up right now and the post war plan sucked ass. bush did not do a good job there, but that is not a reason not to have gone in.

 

I love how you guys pick and choose shit out of the 9/11 report. you know it also said Saddam planned to start up chemical/biological weapons programs as soon as the inspectors were out and the 'eye' of the world was off him?

 

do you also forget about the SEVENTEEN UN resolution that saddman IGNORED! Bush was the only president with enough backbone to stand up for the world and enforce them. by the way, MANY MANY weapons were found that were classified in the resolutions as weapons saddam COULD NOT HAVE!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Bush never said that huh? Here are a few quotes of him saying just that:

 

 

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

 

Speaker: Bush, George - President

 

Date: 9/26/2002

 

Quote/Claim:

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.” [source: White House Web site]

 

Fact:

“Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” - National Journal, 8/9/03

 

Reference Reference

 

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

 

Speaker: Bush, George - President

 

Date: 9/23/2003

 

Quote/Claim:

"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” [source: White House Web site -- Speech to UN]

 

Fact:

"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." - NY Times, 1/15/04

 

"Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful. Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league." - Knight-Ridder, 3/02/04

 

Reference Reference

 

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

 

Speaker: Bush, George - President

 

Date: 9/17/2003

 

Quote/Claim:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” [source: White House Web site]

 

Fact:

Declassified documents “undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to al Qaeda.” - LA Times, 7/19/03

 

Reference

 

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

 

Speaker: Bush, George - President

 

Date: 6/18/2004

 

Quote/Claim:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." [source: Washington Post, 6/18/04]

 

Fact:

“The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.” - Washington Post, 6/17/04

 

"We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." - Bush Weapons Inspector David Kay, Boston Globe, 6/16/04

 

Reference Reference Reference

 

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

 

Speaker: Bush, George - President

 

Date: 6/17/2004

 

Quote/Claim:

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.” [source: White House Web site]

 

Fact:

"Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 — the day the war in Iraq began — Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'" - USA Today, 6/16/04

 

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001." - President Bush, 5/1/03

 

“[iraq is] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 9/14/03

 

Reference Reference Reference

 

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

 

Speaker: Bush, George - President

 

Date: 2/8/2004

 

Quote/Claim:

"[iraq] had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network." [source: Meet the Press transcript]

 

Fact:

This assertion belies the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which told the White House that Iraq would most likely only coordinate with Al Qaeda if the U.S. invaded Iraq. As the NYT reported, "[A] CIA assessment said last October: 'Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks' in the United States." The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with WMD as 'his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'" Previously, the CIA had told the White House that Iraq "has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups." And David Kay himself said, " I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists" in Iraq. - NIE, 2002; NY Times, 2/6/02, 1/29/03; NBC News, 1/26/02

 

Reference Reference Reference

 

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

 

Speaker: Bush, George - President

 

Date: 2/8/2003

 

Quote/Claim:

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.” [source: White House Web site]

 

Fact:

“The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.” - Washington Post, 6/17/04

 

"We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." - Bush Weapons Inspector David Kay, Boston Globe, 6/16/04

 

 

Oh, and then there is the letter GWB sent to congress:

 

Fact:

President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” - Globalsecurity.org

 

 

The one thing I really dont understand is this: GWB supporters take criticism of the president(who has ROYALLY screwed up) as a personal attack. Its not like anyone is insulting your God, or your wife, or your mother. This is a president who has CLEARLY lied. Why does everyone get so upset when people call him on it?

[Dylan06SS]

[jboyd2004]

This is a president who has CLEARLY lied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - what president hasn't lied? During the whole Vietnam fiasco, a certain president ran on the premise of ending US involvement - Vietnamization. When elected into office, the US presence was increased. They all lie. Some just do it better than others.

 

Whether or not Bush lied about it, a serious threat has been eliminated from the middle east. I'm sorry, Kerry's policy was cut and run whether he said it or not. On top of that, Kerry and Edwards complained about Bush not properly supplying the troops with body armor and then voted against funding for it. IMO, Bush is the best man (that ran for office) for the job right now.

[MN C5]

I've been reading your dribble....

 

Typical Monday-morning quarterbacking

 

Defined as

 

A person who criticizes or passes judgment from a position of hindsight.

 

Or so you can understand it

 

Question - What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?

 

 

Answer - A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

 

 

Also FWIW we supported both Iran & Iraq at the same time. Jimmy Carter's policy

 

 

President's Special Review Board The Tower Commission Report, New York: Bantam Books/Times Books, 1987, pp. 294-95.

 

"U.S. policy with respect to Iran was more complicated, because it followed two tracks at once. On the one hand, U.S. officials saw "a great potential" for a covert program to undermine the government in Teheran and on the other hand, Washington tried to build ties to that same government"

 

IMHO both Jimmy & Ronald saw that prolonging the war might not be a bad thing for the rest of the world. The United States and Russia both took various sides prior to and during the war. The view was if either side were victorious it would lead to larger world conflicts. France on the other hand supported Iraq throughout the war because of their financial interests...

 

It would appear you’re only armed with enough facts to make yourself dangerous

[emperor72]

This is a president who has CLEARLY lied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - what president hasn't lied? During the whole Vietnam fiasco, a certain president ran on the premise of ending US involvement - Vietnamization. When elected into office, the US presence was increased. They all lie. Some just do it better than others.

 

Whether or not Bush lied about it, a serious threat has been eliminated from the middle east. I'm sorry, Kerry's policy was cut and run whether he said it or not. On top of that, Kerry and Edwards complained about Bush not properly supplying the troops with body armor and then voted against funding for it. IMO, Bush is the best man (that ran for office) for the job right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Clinton lied about a blowjob. He was impeached because of it.

 

Bush has lied nemerous times, costing THOUSANDS of american lives, and he gets a pass?

 

What is wrong with you?

 

Kerry didnt get us into this mess. Kerry didnt ask congress for war powers. KERRY ISNT PRESIDENT!

 

Bush IS, however, and should be held accountable. Period.

 

I dont want Kerry for president. I am not a liberal.

 

I am just telling the truth.