You don't speak for me, Cindy!

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Well perhaps your "embark on the Cindy ST*U tour" set a bad presidence? Seems as though you and others would like her to do just that. Don't you repect her right to not ST*U?

I enjoy watching her speak. Because everytime she speaks in public she becomes less of a grieving mother and more a raving lefty that would make Moore proud.

I am sure she is doing this for Moore brownie points. You can morph her into whatever you please, doesn't and will never diminish the fact that she is indeed, a grieving mother. But I like the mental picture I have in my head of the right using her like a Mrs. Potato Head doll

I dont really care why she is doing it. Just let her keep on speaking it is funny as hell at this point to watch the circus.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BushBasha
I maintain that we went there to 1.) protect America. We believed that Saddam had WMD and would, if given the chance, use them against us when he finished developing the capacity to carry-out such attacks. 2.) To liberate millions of Muslims living under one of the most oppressive regimes in history. To remove someone who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. To remove someone who raped and murdered his own constituency. To remove a growing threat.

I maintain you don't have one shred of documentation to substantiate any of that. I further maintain that all investigations by the CIA, the FBI and the 9/11 committee refute your statements entirely.

You need more than smoke, mirrors and a bullsh8 agenda to justify what this stupid war has cost in lives, money and the good name and reputation of the United States of America. George Bush, Jr. and his adminstration are an embarrssment to this nation and all of humanity. :|

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: Engineer

We shouldn't have been there to begin with as it has done nothing but CREATE terrorists, .......

Okay, so you are arguing that the actions of this administration 'created' terrorists; let's assume that this nonsense is true. How, then, do you explain decades of terrorism prior to Bush assuming office? I am reminded of a stupid exam that was sent to me in via. email...related to profiling. Please explain, line by line (except for the acts of terrorism AFTER he took office, as we all know what facilitated these attacks :roll, how Bush is responsible for each act of terrorism:




2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were
kidnapped and massacred by

a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were
kidnapped in Lebanon by

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown
up by

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked
and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered
and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and
a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was
murdered by

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first
time by

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from
Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were
used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers
and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US
Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands
of people were killed by

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and
Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in
Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and
murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify
profiling, do you?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

****JohnGalt****, you left once......

Why do you think he's the same person as ****JG****?

If it turns out to be true I won't even bother clicking on his threads anymore, though even if it's not true it seems likely he'll soon be on my "ignore to avoid idiocy" list anyway.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Engineer

We shouldn't have been there to begin with as it has done nothing but CREATE terrorists, .......

Okay, so you are arguing that the actions of this administration 'created' terrorists; let's assume that this nonsense is true. How, then, do you explain decades of terrorism prior to Bush assuming office? I am reminded of a stupid exam that was sent to me in via. email...related to profiling. Please explain, line by line (except for the acts of terrorism AFTER he took office, as we all know what facilitated these attacks :roll, how Bush is responsible for each act of terrorism:




2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were
kidnapped and massacred by

a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were
kidnapped in Lebanon by

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown
up by

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked
and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered
and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and
a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was
murdered by

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first
time by

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from
Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were
used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers
and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US
Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands
of people were killed by

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and
Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in
Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and
murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40


Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify
profiling, do you?

:roll: They all came from Iraq?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Engineer

We shouldn't have been there to begin with as it has done nothing but CREATE terrorists, .......

Okay, so you are arguing that the actions of this administration 'created' terrorists; let's assume that this nonsense is true. How, then, do you explain decades of terrorism prior to Bush assuming office? I am reminded of a stupid exam that was sent to me in via. email...related to profiling. Please explain, line by line (except for the acts of terrorism AFTER he took office, as we all know what facilitated these attacks :roll, how Bush is responsible for each act of terrorism:

Where did I say that there were NO terrorists before Bush? I said that there are MORE terrorists because of Bush. Here's a since there is no pretzel Icon (must be banned since Bush choked on it).

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Amazing how low people will go to support this bullsh*t lie of a war. I feel sorry for all families that say they honor the troops with false patriotism and hatred.

Stay right where you are, Cindy!

The OP is clearly no human being, so he can get off his high horse and quit ruining the gene pool.

NO EXCUSES! IF YOU LOVE TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE, GET YOUR GOD DAMN ASS TO IRAQ NOW!

You are a perfect example of why this board is a disgusting cesspool.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Pedro69

As far as I remember those Terrorists were not in Iraq before the US invaded, so how do you justify the invasion?

I am glad you asked (and not just launch stupid attacks). I maintain that we went there to 1.) protect America. We believed that Saddam had WMD and would, if given the chance, use them against us when he finished developing the capacity to carry-out such attacks. 2.) To liberate millions of Muslims living under one of the most oppressive regimes in history. To remove someone who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. To remove someone who raped and murdered his own constituency. To remove a growing threat.

Again, I cannot understand how liberalcons can oppose this war, even from the beginning, given the ends it hopes to achieve...the liberation of millions. Females are no able to go to school in Afghanistan and Iraq...holding elections and learning the true meaning of self-determination...why deny people the most fundamental tenet of humans--free will?

1. Protect America from what? A pitty "third world country" dictator with no capabilities on striking the US? Iraq was contained for many years and they never threatend to attack the US.

2. Yeah right! Most of you guys could not even find Iraq on a map before the invasion, but I am supposed to believe that you cared?

3. To remove someone who killed thousands with weapons bought with the money from your goverment.


And again I repeat: The money and lives LOST in Iraq would have done a lot fighting the real enemy

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: Harvey

I maintain you don't have one shred of documentation to substantiate any of that. I further maintain that all investigations by the CIA, the FBI and the 9/11 committee refutes your statement entirely.

You need more than smoke, mirrors and a bullsh8 agenda to justify what this stupid war has cost in lives, money and the good name and reputation of the United States of America. George Bush, Jr. and his adminstration are an embarrssment to this nation and all of humanity. :|

You are correct; I have no documentation...Sandy Burger shoved them all down his pants. Did you read the quotes from the honorable William Jefferson Clinton? He, too, believed, even when we evaded, that Saddam had WMD...doesn't really square with the liberalcon talking points, does it?

Had we of not went into Iraq and Saddam launched a missile killing everyone in a blue state, the liberalcons would have gone nuts asking why he didn't do something. The fact of the matter is, Democrats sat on their hands throughout the 90's while we were attacked repeatedly and we finally have an administration who will make the hard decisions to do whatever it takes to protect Americans. Yea, yea, I know...Saddam wasn't a threat...tell that to every single Democratic Senator who approved the use of force; tell that to Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the rest of the liberal leaders who arrived at the same conclusions as the Bush administration: Saddam must leave office or face the dogs of war. He opted for the latter...the rest is history.

Freedom is on the march.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

I am glad you asked (and not just launch stupid attacks). I maintain that we went there to 1.) protect America. We believed that Saddam had WMD and would, if given the chance, use them against us when he finished developing the capacity to carry-out such attacks. 2.) To liberate millions of Muslims living under one of the most oppressive regimes in history. To remove someone who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. To remove someone who raped and murdered his own constituency. To remove a growing threat.

Ridiculous. I'll address these in your own numerical order:

1. We had zero evidence to suggest SH had the ability or the inclination to use WMDs against us (unlike, say, North Korea, which was literally at that moment openly developing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them against the US).

2. We never cared about any of those things when we were funding SH under the Reagan and GHWB administrations. We paid for the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds, and they were made largely of chemicals sold to him by US companies with the approval of the US government. We have disregarded and continue to disregard similar and even worse human-rights abuses in dozens of countries, to include most of sub-Saharan Africa.

What evidence was there that SH was "a growing threat"? His regime was one of the only ones in the middle east NOT to have harbored al Qaeda, and his connection to international terrorism was a whole lot more tenuous than, say, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, to name just a few. The sanctions, even with the cheating we passively allowed, were succeeding in rendering Iraq more or less completely prostrate. The idea he was a growing power is just crazy.

What I guess I don't get is how anyone can even argue that we attacked Iraq more or less precisely because that's what the PNAC playbook dictated. It just boggles my mind that the public is so ignorant of PNAC, and the blame has to fall on the lapdog "liberal media".

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Harvey

I maintain you don't have one shred of documentation to substantiate any of that. I further maintain that all investigations by the CIA, the FBI and the 9/11 committee refutes your statement entirely.

You need more than smoke, mirrors and a bullsh8 agenda to justify what this stupid war has cost in lives, money and the good name and reputation of the United States of America. George Bush, Jr. and his adminstration are an embarrssment to this nation and all of humanity. :|

You are correct; I have no documentation...Sandy Burger shoved them all down his pants. Did you read the quotes from the honorable William Jefferson Clinton? He, too, believed, even when we evaded, that Saddam had WMD...doesn't really square with the liberalcon talking points, does it?

Had we of not went into Iraq and Saddam launched a missile killing everyone in a blue state, the liberalcons would have gone nuts asking why he didn't do something. The fact of the matter is, Democrats sat on their hands throughout the 90's while we were attacked repeatedly and we finally have an administration who will make the hard decisions to do whatever it takes to protect Americans. Yea, yea, I know...Saddam wasn't a threat...tell that to every single Democratic Senator who approved the use of force; tell that to Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the rest of the liberal leaders who arrived at the same conclusions as the Bush administration: Saddam must leave office or face the dogs of war. He opted for the latter...the rest is history.

Freedom is on the march.

That sad part is that you really believe that horseshit. The intelligence was so cooked that anyone would believe it. Clinton might have suspected, but he didn't jump the gun on half ass intelligence and start a war.

As Colon Powell said after his speech to the UN for war..."I wonder how people are going to feel if we drop 1/2 million troops in Iraq and go from one end to another and find nothing?".

Cooked the intelligence. I guess the American people can see it easier than you fanboys....as Bush's ratings overall and in honesty are both below 50%....with approval at a nice low of 36%. Will it effect him? no...will it effect the GOP congress.....2006 will tell.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: sandorski

:roll: They all came from Iraq?

You missed the point (predictable). Someone asserted that Bush "created" terrorism. Please, then, explain how Bush created these acts of terrorism. You see, my friend, terrorism has been around for decades. We turned a blind eye when attacked before...6 times under Clinton. We turn no more blind eyes. Sorry. Bush didn't create terrorists; Bush is defending us from terrorists...something the liberalcons of the blue states fail to understand (well, not all of them...Hillary et al are still on board, just the moveon.org fringe is out of control).

Nonetheless, it's quitting time, so you kids will have to fight this one (and attack me so more and not my arguments) without me. Play nice now, or there will be no crow for you liberalcons. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Nonetheless, it's quitting time, so you kids will have to fight this one (and attack me so more and not my arguments) without me. Play nice now, or there will be no crow for you liberalcons. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Hopefully by tomorrow the airplane glue will have caused BB to forget the ultra-annoying (and frankly embarrassing, on his behalf) "liberalcons" sobriquet.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Harvey

I maintain you don't have one shred of documentation to substantiate any of that. I further maintain that all investigations by the CIA, the FBI and the 9/11 committee refutes your statement entirely.

You need more than smoke, mirrors and a bullsh8 agenda to justify what this stupid war has cost in lives, money and the good name and reputation of the United States of America. George Bush, Jr. and his adminstration are an embarrssment to this nation and all of humanity. :|

You are correct; I have no documentation...Sandy Burger shoved them all down his pants. Did you read the quotes from the honorable William Jefferson Clinton? He, too, believed, even when we evaded, that Saddam had WMD...doesn't really square with the liberalcon talking points, does it?

Had we of not went into Iraq and Saddam launched a missile killing everyone in a blue state, the liberalcons would have gone nuts asking why he didn't do something. The fact of the matter is, Democrats sat on their hands throughout the 90's while we were attacked repeatedly and we finally have an administration who will make the hard decisions to do whatever it takes to protect Americans. Yea, yea, I know...Saddam wasn't a threat...tell that to every single Democratic Senator who approved the use of force; tell that to Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the rest of the liberal leaders who arrived at the same conclusions as the Bush administration: Saddam must leave office or face the dogs of war. He opted for the latter...the rest is history.

Freedom is on the march.

There's that lie about documents and Pants again.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: sandorski

:roll: They all came from Iraq?

You missed the point (predictable). Someone asserted that Bush "created" terrorism.

Nobody asserted that he "created" terrorism (although he may be a terrorist himself). It was said that going to Iraq created terrorists. Al-Qaeda is reportedly two times the size it was before we went to Iraq. iraq is the poster for Al-Qaeda recruitment, but of course, you don't see it that way. They're free...they're free....oh wait, Islamic Constitution ....oops.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Did you read the quotes from the honorable William Jefferson Clinton? He, too, believed, even when we evaded, that Saddam had WMD...doesn't really square with the liberalcon talking points, does it?

So when did Clinton invade Iraq? Oh right he didn't, because he only believed they had WMD's but had no conclusive proof.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Did you read the quotes from the honorable William Jefferson Clinton? He, too, believed, even when we evaded, that Saddam had WMD...doesn't really square with the liberalcon talking points, does it?

So when did Clinton invade Iraq? Oh right he didn't, because he only believed they had WMD's but had no conclusive proof.

:beer:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: sandorski

:roll: They all came from Iraq?

You missed the point (predictable). Someone asserted that Bush "created" terrorism. Please, then, explain how Bush created these acts of terrorism. You see, my friend, terrorism has been around for decades. We turned a blind eye when attacked before...6 times under Clinton. We turn no more blind eyes. Sorry. Bush didn't create terrorists; Bush is defending us from terrorists...something the liberalcons of the blue states fail to understand (well, not all of them...Hillary et al are still on board, just the moveon.org fringe is out of control).

Nonetheless, it's quitting time, so you kids will have to fight this one (and attack me so more and not my arguments) without me. Play nice now, or there will be no crow for you liberalcons. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Someone predictably missed the point alright and it wasn't me.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Harvey
YOU SPEAK FOR ME, CINDY!

Thank you for making the entire left wing look like a joke.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BushBasha
You are correct; I have no documentation...Sandy Burger shoved them all down his pants.[/b]And here I was, thinking you ate all those documents to avoid having to show them to us.

That's such a crock of sh8! There's not a chance in hell that Berger, or anyone else, would have access to every copy of every document that supports your ridiculous assertertions. Assuming, for the moment, that he did, there wouldn't have been enough room to stuff all that paper down his leg, even if he had borrowed the Jolly Green Giant's overalls.

Did you read the quotes from the honorable William Jefferson Clinton? He, too, believed, even when we evaded, that Saddam had WMD...doesn't really square with the liberalcon talking points, does it?

The honorable (?) ex-President was out of office by 9/11. What he believed, based on the information he had at the time, and reality as it existed, later, disproved your idiocy.

For reference, Congress grudgingly gave Bush permission to start the war if he believed it necessary. They did not declare the war or give the orders to start it. They accepted the cooked up evidence given to them by the administration.

Remember Colin Powell's bogus slide show for the U.N.? He "proved" conclusively that Saddam had facilities to produce chemical weapons... What chemical weapons facilities :roll:

Had we of not went into Iraq and Saddam launched a missile killing everyone in a blue state, the liberalcons would have gone nuts asking why he didn't do something.

What part of BULLSH8!!! do you not understand? Prove it, or STFU!

Freedom is on the march.

And with any luck, it will march right over petty wannbe tyrants like George Bush, Jr. and his adminstration and take loudmouth neocon chickenhawks like you with it. :|

 

[Wheezer]

Remember Colin Powell's bogus slide show for the U.N.? He "proved" conclusively that Saddam had facilities to produce chemical weapons... What chemical weapons facilities

You say Bush was wrong to go into Iraq....but what made him wrong and Clinton right for bombing Bosnia? They were killing thier own...they were not going to do anything to us so who cared?

They should have handled it on thier own and kept us out of it. Besides we had NO evideince that ehtnic cleansing was taking place...just words of a few people "claiming" thier families had been wiped out....

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
Thank you for making the entire left wing look like a joke.

Sorry, but I don't speak for an entire anything but myself. But thanks for proving what a sorry joke you are. :laugh:

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Harvey
YOU SPEAK FOR ME, CINDY!

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: Harvey
YOU SPEAK FOR ME, CINDY!

 

[Rainsford]

Here's what I don't understand. These pro-war people are presumably angry because they think Sheehan is speaking for them, that she's implying she has the support of all military families. While I'm not sure that's what she's been doing, I can understand why they might be upset thinking she is. So naturally, their response is to do exactly the same thing she's doing...what pro-war people have been doing for a long time now, presuming to speak for soldiers and military families. "Oh, but we DO speak for them" is the predictable reply, but I'm not so sure they are right. And in any case, it's certainly pretty clear Americans are pretty divided on the issue. Can we maybe have a debate without small groups of people speaking for everybody else?