Wow what a whopper.Originally posted by: Zebo
Moral sucks. We are in danger of loosing this war all thanks to his sh1tty policy and implementation. He had no choice. This simple minded geusture should stave off some defections for awile. But the troops keep being killed bush will loose.
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.
That's real nice and all Ldir, but did you have something to say?Originally posted by: Ldir
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.
This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's real nice and all Ldir, but did you have something to say?Originally posted by: Ldir
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.
This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
CkG
And that has to do with what these people said...why?Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's real nice and all Ldir, but did you have something to say?Originally posted by: Ldir
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.
This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
CkGDuh.![]()
![]()
This is a sneak preview of Dubya's 2004 campaign. He will exploit Iraq and 9-11.
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And that has to do with what these people said...why?Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's real nice and all Ldir, but did you have something to say?Originally posted by: Ldir
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.
This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
CkGDuh.![]()
![]()
This is a sneak preview of Dubya's 2004 campaign. He will exploit Iraq and 9-11.
But since you seem to think that Bush is exploiting it - I think you need to look at the other side as far as exploitation too. Iraq seems to be the main thing they have all been yapping about...but yeah - I guess that isn't exploitation
Everything is a conspiracy with some people![]()
CkG
You failed to answer the question.Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
I already answered your question. You failed to respond to my answer. I will not play your stupid game.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You failed to answer the question.Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
CkG
Originally posted by: Ldir
I already answered your question. You failed to respond to my answer. I will not play your stupid game.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You failed to answer the question.Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
CkG
Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
BAA revisionist history at work. You forgot about Bush the First. He had forces on the ground but did not finish the job.Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
ahh the ever present "well, that is different"
well it is not, then president bill clinton had this to sayafter he attacked iraq:
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
(BAA) of course lobbing a few missiles did not get the job done. (BAA) it takes a republican to finish what a democrat fails to. (BAA)
(This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America. Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.)
how many U.S. Presidents have visited a country we were at war with while the country was this unstable?Originally posted by: charrison
Think of the whining that would have happened if he had not gone to iraq.Originally posted by: dudleydocker
Let the whining begin....:disgust:
ROFL!!! "revisionist history!!" bush1 did not arbitrailly say "okay, let's stop here" the UN did and if had kept going all the same buffoons saying the same thing you just did would have screamed bloody murder with teh same accusations you do at bush2.Originally posted by: Ldir
BAA revisionist history at work. You forgot about Bush the First. He had forces on the ground but did not finish the job.Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
ahh the ever present "well, that is different"
well it is not, then president bill clinton had this to sayafter he attacked iraq:
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
(BAA) of course lobbing a few missiles did not get the job done. (BAA) it takes a republican to finish what a democrat fails to. (BAA)
(This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America. Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.)
The Iraq job is still not finished. That will take a Democrat willing to work with the UN. The only job Dubya finished is bankrupting the treasury. That was started by Reagan.
Since when do we give two craps what the U.N. thinks? If Bush 2 is right for invading Iraq, then Bush 1 was wrong for stopping. Based on all the usual reasons I hear around here constantly.Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
ROFL!!! "revisionist history!!" bush1 did not arbitrailly say "okay, let's stop here" the UN did and if had kept going all the same buffoons saying the same thing you just did would have screamed bloody murder with teh same accusations you do at bush2.
would that be the same UN that did not finish the job in 91? the same UN that cannot enforce it's own resolutions? ROFL!!! what spaceship did you fall out of?
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Since when do we give two craps what the U.N. thinks? If Bush 2 is right for invading Iraq, then Bush 1 was wrong for stopping. Based on all the usual reasons I hear around here constantly.Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
ROFL!!! "revisionist history!!" bush1 did not arbitrailly say "okay, let's stop here" the UN did and if had kept going all the same buffoons saying the same thing you just did would have screamed bloody murder with teh same accusations you do at bush2.
would that be the same UN that did not finish the job in 91? the same UN that cannot enforce it's own resolutions? ROFL!!! what spaceship did you fall out of?
Well in all fairness, i don't think Bush would have much time for that seeing as he'd have to attend a dozen funerals or so every week....so I think spending 2-3 hours with the troops in Baghdad is a superterrific alternative! I'm all for morale boost for our troops over there. Whether or not they belong there right now is a seperate issue. They are there and we need to deal with it and support them. However, I'm getting pretty fvckin tired of this common scenario we see every week...Originally posted by: jpeyton
Funny how he'll fly halfway across the world for a political stunt but won't be seen at a soldier's funeral back home.