For all you bush lovers....

[JustAnAverageGuy]

The end... well... damn.

 

[bjc112]

Well I agree with John kerry.. For a change..

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "(I)t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/23/01

"I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

"... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

"I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

It things like this that make me laugh when John Kerry talks about the president misleading the country.

 

[Ferocious]

Excellent video!

Conservatives should be embarrassed enough by now to fire this neocon.

EDIT:

bjc112: Most Americans (not just Kerry) were misled by Bush's rhetoric of the last few years. But we now know what the TRUTH is. Unfortunately many people still refuse to accept reality.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: bjc112
Well I agree with John kerry.. For a change..

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "(I)t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/23/01

"I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

"... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

"I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

It things like this that make me laugh when John Kerry talks about the president misleading the country.

But all those statements were based on him listening to PRESIDENT BUSH. Now that we see Bush either lied outright, was mislead himself, or even doctored up the so called intelligence Kerry as well as the rest of us can make the right statements. See the problem with arguement is that Kerry based his beliefs and stements on PRESIDENT BUSH. enough said.

 

[imported_Condor]

I am not a Bush lover but I do respect him for fighting two wars. The one in the Middle East and the one here. In the Middle East, the Muslim extremist are the enemy, here, the liberals and their press are. Once again this is a war much like Viet Nam. It is like Viet Nam in that it is a guerilla war with undefined boundaries and no uniforms for the enemy, once again; traitors in the US who apparently don?t see the danger are fighting against our way of life. The principle difference as I see it is that during RVN, I didn't see Vietnamese on every street and in every mall in the US and the world. Vietnam was contained. This one is global and your neighbor could be planning an attack. In that war, America was not at risk. In this war, there is a danger to the homeland. We all know how Kerry got us out of Vietnam; do we want him to do the same this time? Do you think the ticket should really be Kerry/Fonda?

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I can't believe a grown adult would believe that the president would trash his approval ratings, take a huge political risk, spend billions of dollars, spend massive time and effort, put American troops in harms way, and kill thousands of people to "get the man that tried to kill his daddy".

Engineer, you're Alice in Wonderland bud.

It all stems from the original quote from Bush...."You all know Saddam was a bad man. He tried to kill my daddy". W wanted to finish the job that his dad didn't. Anyone who doesn't believe that is in wonderland theirselves!!!

i agree that what you say has some basis in reality.

But what's the alternative? Let the Democrats and the UN go back to policing the world? Ever heard of a little think called the Rwanda genocide?

Or how about the well documented story of Executive Outcomes, a South African army for hire who helped bring a bloody civil war in Sierra Leone to a standstill with just a few hundred soldiers, then were forced out the country by Clinton and the UN at which point the civil war started back up again despite 1500+ UN peacekeepers, leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

Or how about Somalia, where Clinton and the Dems turned tail and fled after the loss of just 18 men.

The UN is full of intellecual, liberal COWARDS who do little more than write letters as thousands of innocent people die. I'd rather have a guy in office who looks for moral justification for military actions and follows through rather than a pansy-ass liberal who does whatever Kofi Annan tells him to do.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I can't believe a grown adult would believe that the president would trash his approval ratings, take a huge political risk, spend billions of dollars, spend massive time and effort, put American troops in harms way, and kill thousands of people to "get the man that tried to kill his daddy".

Engineer, you're Alice in Wonderland bud.

It all stems from the original quote from Bush...."You all know Saddam was a bad man. He tried to kill my daddy". W wanted to finish the job that his dad didn't. Anyone who doesn't believe that is in wonderland theirselves!!!

i agree that what you say has some basis in reality.

But what's the alternative? Let the Democrats and the UN go back to policing the world? Ever heard of a little think called the Rwanda genocide?

Or how about the well documented story of Executive Outcomes, a South African army for hire who helped bring a bloody civil war in Sierra Leone to a standstill with just a few hundred soldiers, then were forced out the country by Clinton and the UN at which point the civil war started back up again despite 1500+ UN peacekeepers, leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

Or how about Somalia, where Clinton and the Dems turned tail and fled after the loss of just 18 men.

The UN is full of intellecual, liberal COWARDS who do little more than write letters as thousands of innocent people die. I'd rather have a guy in office who looks for moral justification for military actions and follows through rather than a pansy-ass liberal who does whatever Kofi Annan tells him to do.

I'm a liberal, and the last thing you would do is call me a pansy- ass to my face. I would place you for life in your moniker. There is nothing cowardly about standing up to punks who wrap themselves in a neocon flag. You sound like an armchair wannabe that hasn't two tittles of brainpower to put together a coherent original thought. I pity people like you. :roll:

 

[AntiEverything]

LMAO, still the same old internet tough guy you always were Tripleshot. Glad to see that some things never change around here.

Look out Republicans, Tripleshot is coming to town to kick some neocon ass!

 

[KenSr]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I can't believe a grown adult would believe that the president would trash his approval ratings, take a huge political risk, spend billions of dollars, spend massive time and effort, put American troops in harms way, and kill thousands of people to "get the man that tried to kill his daddy".

Engineer, you're Alice in Wonderland bud.

How about adding big oil, Halliburton contracts, etc. to His list of reasons.

 

[Engineer]

"I know what a disarmed country looks like....and Iraq doesn't look like that"

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Excellent video!

Conservatives should be embarrassed enough by now to fire this neocon.

Ferocious, in your own words, please define "neocon" for me.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Condor
I am not a Bush lover but I do respect him for fighting two wars. The one in the Middle East and the one here. In the Middle East, the Muslim extremist are the enemy, here, the liberals and their press are. Once again this is a war much like Viet Nam. It is like Viet Nam in that it is a guerilla war with undefined boundaries and no uniforms for the enemy, once again; traitors in the US who apparently don?t see the danger are fighting against our way of life. The principle difference as I see it is that during RVN, I didn't see Vietnamese on every street and in every mall in the US and the world. Vietnam was contained. This one is global and your neighbor could be planning an attack. In that war, America was not at risk. In this war, there is a danger to the homeland. We all know how Kerry got us out of Vietnam; do we want him to do the same this time? Do you think the ticket should really be Kerry/Fonda?

:roll:

We were not then and were never in danger by Iraq. Period. Stop confusing Iraq for Osama. It gets old.

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: bjc112
Well I agree with John kerry.. For a change..

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "(I)t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/23/01

"I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

"... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

"I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

It things like this that make me laugh when John Kerry talks about the president misleading the country.

But all those statements were based on him listening to PRESIDENT BUSH. Now that we see Bush either lied outright, was mislead himself, or even doctored up the so called intelligence Kerry as well as the rest of us can make the right statements. See the problem with arguement is that Kerry based his beliefs and stements on PRESIDENT BUSH. enough said.

Actually he made those statements after reviewing the SAME INTELLIGENCE that Bush used to draw the same conclusions, but somehow, because Bush actually had the conviction and the balls to act on the intelligence now he "misled" and "lied" to the US. That's a bunch of crap. The sanctions were FAILING. The oilr for food program was a corrupt joke. The most dangerous thing that could have happened is that the inspectors would have failed to find stockpiles of weapons, the UN would lift sactions and then Saddam would go right back to producing weapons. He needed to be dealt with and I for one am glad our Comander In Chief had the balls to get it done.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

:roll:

We were not then and were never in danger by Iraq. Period. Stop confusing Iraq for Osama. It gets old.

That is simply not true. Merely stating it doesn't make it so. We also weren't in danger by Osama, until 9/11. We had opportunities to take him out several times, but chose not to because he "wasn't a threat". Kerry himself said that Saddam was a threat.

:roll:

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: raildogg
im not a Bush supporter, but im not sure about your point. Saddam is gone, Iraq is on a path to democracy. At the moment, things are looking bad in Iraq, but i would give it time. Things were bad in post war Germany and Japan also

The point is that the whole administration LIED to get the man that "Tried to kill his daddy".

Interesting that you put this between quotation marks. Has he actually said that?

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: umbrella39

:roll:

We were not then and were never in danger by Iraq. Period. Stop confusing Iraq for Osama. It gets old.

That is simply not true. Merely stating it doesn't make it so. We also weren't in danger by Osama, until 9/11. We had opportunities to take him out several times, but chose not to because he "wasn't a threat". Kerry himself said that Saddam was a threat.

:roll:

Bah! Don't let the facts get in the way of our Bush hatred. NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!! :roll:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: umbrella39

:roll:

We were not then and were never in danger by Iraq. Period. Stop confusing Iraq for Osama. It gets old.

That is simply not true. Merely stating it doesn't make it so. We also weren't in danger by Osama, until 9/11. We had opportunities to take him out several times, but chose not to because he "wasn't a threat". Kerry himself said that Saddam was a threat.

:roll:

We weren't?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: umbrella39

:roll:

We were not then and were never in danger by Iraq. Period. Stop confusing Iraq for Osama. It gets old.

That is simply not true. Merely stating it doesn't make it so. We also weren't in danger by Osama, until 9/11. We had opportunities to take him out several times, but chose not to because he "wasn't a threat". Kerry himself said that Saddam was a threat.

:roll:

We weren't?

Not according to those who didn't pursue his capture. My point is, most Americans didn't think he was a threat, because he had no capabilities of attacking us this far. So we thought. I'm trying to convey that he was a threat, but we didn't realize it until we were attacked. It very well could have been the same with Saddam. Why wait till thousands of people are killed before we're convinced of the threat?

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I can't believe a grown adult would believe that the president would trash his approval ratings, take a huge political risk, spend billions of dollars, spend massive time and effort, put American troops in harms way, and kill thousands of people to "get the man that tried to kill his daddy".

Engineer, you're Alice in Wonderland bud.

It all stems from the original quote from Bush...."You all know Saddam was a bad man. He tried to kill my daddy". W wanted to finish the job that his dad didn't. Anyone who doesn't believe that is in wonderland theirselves!!!

i agree that what you say has some basis in reality.

But what's the alternative? Let the Democrats and the UN go back to policing the world? Ever heard of a little think called the Rwanda genocide?

Or how about the well documented story of Executive Outcomes, a South African army for hire who helped bring a bloody civil war in Sierra Leone to a standstill with just a few hundred soldiers, then were forced out the country by Clinton and the UN at which point the civil war started back up again despite 1500+ UN peacekeepers, leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

Or how about Somalia, where Clinton and the Dems turned tail and fled after the loss of just 18 men.

The UN is full of intellecual, liberal COWARDS who do little more than write letters as thousands of innocent people die. I'd rather have a guy in office who looks for moral justification for military actions and follows through rather than a pansy-ass liberal who does whatever Kofi Annan tells him to do.

I'm a liberal, and the last thing you would do is call me a pansy- ass to my face. I would place you for life in your moniker. There is nothing cowardly about standing up to punks who wrap themselves in a neocon flag. You sound like an armchair wannabe that hasn't two tittles of brainpower to put together a coherent original thought. I pity people like you. :roll:

did i mention you anywhere in my thread? if you take everything anyone says about a general group you identify with PERSONALLY, you are the most pitiful excuse for a human being known to mankind. you and your ilk, my not-friend, are the reason I hate liberals.

i need to get out p&n now. that's enough for one year.

 

[Engineer]

Another reminder of why we went to Iraq....the reason we were "fooled"....er....given!

Bump for a reminder!!!