|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2004 11:15:25 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Ron & Chris
Firstly I entirely agree with you about Left wing media bias.
But have you ever stopped to consider how ludicrious it sounds to believe that the side that is saying what you believe to be true are all up standing, unbiased straight reporters, and that only the other side are manipulating the facts ? |
No arguement, at least on principal.
One difference, particularly when it comes to Limbaugh, is that he not only doesn't claim to be unbiased, he goes out of his way to make the point that he is biased. (But that doesn't equate to being wrong.) On the other hand, the media in general puts up the pretense of being unbiased, when in fact they are. And after so many years of it, so many people accept it just because its the status quo.
As far as Fox News goes, I think most of their reporting is at worst no more biased than the liberal media outlets, and arguably more balanced. They do, however, have a more conservative slant on their commentary. |
|
|
|
03/05/2004 11:31:45 PM · #27 |
If you have read any of my other posts in other threads I have always said that Kerry has taken big money and the dems are not better than the repubs. Do you really think that this is where the idological lines are drawn? If you do, then you are out of touch from listening to to much Rush.
What is not plastic these days in politics? Public relations execs really run the show. Do you not think Bush is coached and trained what to say? They wouldn't let him say anthing on his own for fear he would put his foot in his mouth.
I personally haven't seen the ad, but how would the dems have known that Bush was going to use those scenes in this ad months ago?
You haven't mentioned anything about the huge gap in campaign contributions. |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 08:46:12 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
A little less struggle or stress? My stress level has nothing to do with Bush, my financial struggle on the other hand, when I see the deficit run up and up and up and think that my grandchildren's children will be paying off the immediate threat that was NOT there in Iraq, when I think of the lies that Bush has told this country,. . .
Deannda |
Well, Deannda, you deserve a point-by-point response, but that would mean a very long entry, so I'm going to break it down into smaller segments.
First, regarding the war with Iraq and "the lies" Bush told this country:
The President said that Iraq was an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." Other world leaders, though they agreed, nevertheless held out for diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations opposed military action. The Saudis balked at giving us overflight rights. The U.N. secretary general prepared a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the multiple U.N. resolutions he had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War.
The president asked the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings were very firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he said, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Now, doesn't that provide a compelling reason to go after Saddam Hussein? Or do you think that all of that was just a bunch of lies, made up so that the U.S. could go after Iraq's oil?
If you are of the opinion that it was a bunch of lies, then consider this - those are not the actual words of President George W. Bush. They are the actual words of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998, speaking at the pentagon. His televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.
So, Deannda, would you say that Bill Clinton was LYING to the country? Or is it only George Bush who was lying when he restated those same warnings?
It seems to me that Bill Clinton was NOT lying; that Saddam Hussein WAS a threat, and that if we hadn't taken care of that threat, there wouldn't even BE a country with a deficit that had to be paid off by your grandchildrens' children. Further, I maintain that it is far less costly in both dollars and lives to take care of the problem NOW rather that later.
More to come...
Ron |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 10:02:47 AM · #29 |
Ron...the only ones who really care about what Clinton said or did are the conservatives and republicans. This is a case of hate the one you love. Fact is that when Clinton left the WH he left the country alot better off than we are now in just three short years. And this is not to say that I'm any kind of fan of Clintons.
Did the Bush admin not say that Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger? Were there not people in his administration who were telling him that this was not true?
Did the Bush admin put forth the idea that Hussein and al Qaida were teaming up and that Hussein was transferring weapons to al Qaida? Has this turned out to be true?
Did Colin Powell in his speech to the UN show pics of suppossed WMD labs that has not turned out not to be true?
If Hussein had WMD's why did he not use them when we attacked?
This kind of thinking that our leaders have where we can go invade other countries and overthrow their leaders is preemptive and goes back to the days of the middle ages. It is very paranoid in thinking, especially given the fact that we have not discovered WMD's in Iraq of any kind. If they were so sure about these WMD's existing then surely they would have found something by now. |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 10:07:02 AM · #30 |
| Hey, I know a country which FOR SURE not only has weapons of mass destruction, but has used them against a foreign country. Maybe Mr. Bush should ... oh, wait, he's ALREADY invaded the US. Nevermind .... |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 10:09:46 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Kerry's boasted his vietnam record for political gain. Shouldn't that be offensive to people that lost family members there? |
And Bush won't shut up about being a fighter pilot in the NATIONAL GUARD, never really putting his life on the line. Shouldn't that be offensive to the people who did fight for their country? |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 10:10:21 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Anyone see the photo of him trying to catch a football with his eyes closed? He wants to be the most powerful man in America and he's afraid of the ball! That offends me too. |
 |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 10:12:03 AM · #33 |
One footnote to the above:
By putting so much resources into the Iraq war, into invading a country with a beleagered army and with no air force, we have allowed al Qaida to regroup and strengthen and we are, reports have it, are as much vulnerable to their cell's attacks as we have ever been.
And by going into Iraq, we have alienated the whole Arab world, who really hate us now because they believe that this is a war against Islam. So this makes us even more vulnerable to their attacks.
And, bin Laden is still out there!
This was a war for oil, and everyone knows it and sees it for what it really was. |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 10:12:33 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Did the Bush admin put forth the idea that Hussein and al Qaida were teaming up and that Hussein was transferring weapons to al Qaida? Has this turned out to be true? |
Urm no, even the Whitehouse isn't that deluded to claim that one makes any sense. They've even stated that it doesn't make sense.
The sad thing is, last survey I saw 70% of the US apparently believe it is true, which just demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2004 10:18:38 AM · #35 |
Part two...
Originally posted by Neuferland:
. . .when I think of the damage he has done to the reputation of America throughout the world, that is a struggle to hold my head up high as an American and proudly say I'm an American. Deannda |
Have you read the news from Libya lately? Like this, from Friday's AP Newswire:
"Libya acknowledged stockpiling 20 tons of mustard gas and disclosed the location of a chemical weapons production plant in a declaration submitted on Friday to the chemical weapons watchdog organisation.
Speaking to reporters at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons headquarters in the Hague, Rogelio Pfirter, the director general of the organisation said Libya had handed over 14 file cartons disclosing Libya's chemical weapons programme.
The declaration was a major step in Libya's eliminating its weapons of mass destruction, which it unexpectedly promised last December, hoping to end its international isolation and restore relations with the United States.
In the past week, Libya made the first concrete move to eliminate its stockpiles when it destroyed 3,300 aerial bombs specifically intended to carry chemical payloads."
Apparently, the U.S.'s unilateral actions in Iraq have convinced Libya that it is not in their best interest to continue building up WMD capabilities. That's the kind of Reputation the U.S. has now, due in no small part to President Bush. And you think that our reputation has been damaged? That that kind of a reputation is a BAD thing? Sorry, but I don't. That's the kind of reputation I WANT the U.S. to have. That we WILL take action to defend ourselves, with or without the approval of any other country or organization.
More to come...
Note to Olyuzi - I believe I responded to most of your latest allegations in another thread - Here
Ron |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 10:32:51 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...Apparently, the U.S.'s unilateral actions in Iraq have convinced Libya that it is not in their best interest to continue building up WMD capabilities. That's the kind of Reputation the U.S. has now, due in no small part to President Bush. And you think that our reputation has been damaged? That that kind of a reputation is a BAD thing? Sorry, but I don't. That's the kind of reputation I WANT the U.S. to have. That we WILL take action to defend ourselves, with or without the approval of any other country or organization...
|
Do what I say or I'll beat you up, sounds like the attitude of a bully to me. What usually happens to the bully? The "little guys" gang up and try to beat the crap our of him/her.
Sure we scare some, but we motivate others to rebel against us. The latter is what we need to worry about.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2004 11:13:11 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Do what I say or I'll beat you up, sounds like the attitude of a bully to me. What usually happens to the bully? The "little guys" gang up and try to beat the crap our of him/her.
Sure we scare some, but we motivate others to rebel against us. The latter is what we need to worry about. |
Not "Do what I say or I'll beat you up". More like "Don't continue to pose a serious threat to our national security or I'll beat you up.". If the U.S. were a "bully" we wouldn't have Castro running Cuba. We are NOT a "bully". We don't attack the weakest nations for sport, or just because we can. I've haven't read any reports of "little guys" being afraid of us. Apparently, though, you have. So please provide some links to those reports, so that I can see it for myself. The ones we "scare" are the ones who have reason to be scared, like Libya. And those are the ones that it's good to have be scared.
You ARE right that the latter ( those motivated to rebel against us ) is what we need to worry about, and we are. And we're taking actions to make it not in their best interests to raise that rebellion to a level that threatens our national security. Here's what Zell Miller, the ( Democratic ) Senator from Georgia, had to say to the Congress:
"A few weeks ago, we were doing some work on my back porch back home, tearing out a section of old stacked rocks, when all of a sudden I uncovered a nest of Copperhead snakes.
"Now, I'm not one to get alarmed at snakes. I know they perform some valuable functions, like eating rats.
"And when I was a young lad, I kept snakes as pets. I had an Indigo snake, a Bull snake, a beautiful colored Corn snake and many others. I must have had a dozen King snakes at one time or another. They make great pets and you only had to give them a mouse every 30 days.
"I reminisce this way to explain that snakes don't scare me like they do most people. And I guess the reason is that I know the difference between those snakes that are harmless and those that will kill you.
"A Copperhead will kill you. It could kill one of my dogs. It could kill one of my grandchildren. It could kill any one of my four great grandchildren. They play all the time where I found those killers.
"And you know, when I discovered these Copperheads, I didn't call my wife Shirley for advice, like I do on most things. I didn't go before the city council. I didn't yell for help from my neighbors. I just took a hoe and knocked them in the head and killed them. Dead as a doorknob.
"I guess you could call it a unilateral action. Or preemptive. Perhaps if you had been watching me you could have even called it bellicose and reactive.
"I took their poisonous heads off because they were a threat to me. And they were a threat to my home and my family. They were a threat to all I hold dear. And isn't that what this is all about?"
Now I would ask, What would YOU do in similar circumstances? It's just a matter of degree. Protect your family; Protect your country.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 11:35:57 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hey, I know a country which FOR SURE not only has weapons of mass destruction, but has used them against a foreign country. Maybe Mr. Bush should ... oh, wait, he's ALREADY invaded the US. Nevermind .... |
lol.. true true |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 11:37:23 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by RonB:
We don't attack the weakest nations for sport, or just because we can. |
Grenada, Nicaragua.
Message edited by author 2004-03-06 11:37:53. |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 11:47:33 AM · #40 |
I predict and have said for months that the US has Bin Laden stashed somewhere, just to be able to trot him out as a political ploy to try and steal the election again.
Our people continue to die just so this administration can do what it bloody well pleases.. including spending $1million a minute!
phhhrrrrrrrrrtttttt |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 11:48:44 AM · #41 |
RonB, great points and couldn't agree more with anything you've said.
You know, people b*tch because we're at war but if we had sat back and said, "Oh well, they only murdered a small percentage of our country. We'll just sit back and hope it doesn't happen again." they'd be b*tching about that. Someone always has a complaint. The new candidates 'claim' they can do so much better but no matter who gets in they never do exactly what they say.
And as far as Bill Clinton goes, maybe if he spent more time working for the country instead of playing around in the oval office... At least Bush got Saddam. That's something.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2004 12:16:01 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
We don't attack the weakest nations for sport, or just because we can. |
Grenada, Nicaragua. |
Grenada
"The U.S. invasion of Grenada and the toppling of it's Marxist government can be seen as part of a greater regional conflict. This conflict involved the U.S. and it's Central American and Caribbean allies on one side and Fidel Castro's Cuba, the Sandinista government of Nicaragua and various Marxist guerrilla armies on the other. President Reagan and his administration were concerned that the Marxist government of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop was allowing Cuba to gain undue influence in Grenada, specifically by constructing a military-grade airport with Cuban military engineers."( emphasis mine )
"The announced mission of the American suprise attack, in which troops from a number of Caribbean nations took part, was to ensure the safety of some 1,000 Americans, whose presence on Grenada (most were medical students) was considered endangered by the new marxist military government that had seized power from and murdered Prime Minister Maurice Bishop (1944-83) six days earlier. The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States and Grenada's Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon (1935-) had requested US help to combat the growing influence of Cuba and other communist countries on the island. " (emphasis mine )
Not exactly a unilateral action, since a number of other nations took part ( bully partners? ). Reagan ( apparently ) believed that 1,000 Americans were in danger from the ( new ) marxist military government. Nor would I classify this as "attacking a weak country for sport or just because we can".
Nicaragua
Are you referring to the 1909 "invasion"?
"At the beginning of the twentieth century Nicaragua's economy was dominated by the overwhelming presence of US companies, usually in alliance with Nicaraguan landowners – a pattern which was to characterize economic relations for most of the coming century. Angered when, in 1904, the US chose Panamá for the site of the Transisthmian Canal, president Jose Santos Zelaya countered by inviting Germany and Japan to construct a rival canal across Nicaragua. Though this canal never left the drawing board, the subsequent worsening of relations with the US prompted a civil war in October 1909, with the nationalist Liberals and the US-friendly Conservatives again at each other's throats. In response, the US inaugurated a precedent in Nicaragua – and in the region as a whole – by landing four hundred US marines on the Caribbean coast. Zelaya resigned soon after."
If so, then, again, it seems ludicrous to believe that installing 400 marines in Nicaragua to protect American interests could be called "attacking a weak country for sport or just because we can".
Ron |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 12:37:41 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You ARE right that the latter ( those motivated to rebel against us ) is what we need to worry about, and we are. And we're taking actions to make it not in their best interests to raise that rebellion to a level that threatens our national security. |
I'm still waiting for the WMD's that were the justification for the preemptive strike on Iraq. There are none. So, were they really that much of an imminent threat to the U.S.?
What about North Korea? Why aren't we going after them? They are stepping up their nuclear program. Maybe the reason is, there is nothing North Korea has that would really benefit us.
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
...At least Bush got Saddam. That's something. |
It's just too bad GW's dad let Saddam go when he had the chance to get him during the Gulf War. I know...that was not the objective of that war.
Also, I'm not just bitching about going to war. After 9/11 I was and still am all for going after Al Quida and Bin Laden. The problem I have is we've seem to have lost our focus. GW told us that getting the terrorists was going to be our number one mission. Is it still?
And to JC's comment, I would not be at all surprised if that is true. There's been some news media reports recently that have been reporting this possibility. If Bin Laden pops up in our custody near election time, we should ALL be a little skeptical. It'd be great to have him, but timing it for politacl gain would be questionable.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2004 01:22:28 PM · #44 |
Okay, here is the last part of the response I promised Deannda.
Originally posted by Neuferland:
. . .This is from another site and I think it fits this thread very well:
I think it is a huge mistake for Bush to introduce 9-11 into the election fight. As such, he has made it fair game for the Democrats.
I can see the attack ads already.
Lewinski investigation: 100 million dollars (or however much)
Money spent on Iraq turkey dinner: 20 million dollars
Money spent on 9-11 investigation: 3 million dollars
Bush vacations on his ranch from 2001-2004: 6 months
Total time spent raising campaign funds: 4 months
Time spent on the 9-11 investigation: 1 hour
Knowing the priorities of the president: PRICELESS.
Bush has skeletons in the closet. He must have something very embarrassing to conceal or he wouldn't stonewall the 9-11 investigation.
Now he has given the Democrats free license to go after that.
It's going to be an interesting year.
I am all for taking care of this country and those at home which is why I feel it very important to get a president who does care about this country and not lining his pockets and those of all his friends. It's time for a change.
There have been so many cutbacks to programs that help others, afterschool programs, babysitting aid, just two that have directly affected either my family or friends. It's time to take care of our own.
Deannda |
The last line of your quote from another site is the one that I agree with most:
Knowing the priorities of the President: Priceless.
I believe that Bush knows the priorities, and, to me, that IS priceless.
What do YOU consider to be the "priorities of the President"? Apparently you don't think that his top priority is to ensure that we are protected from those who want to destroy us, and would do so, given the chance ( as they demonstrated on 9/11 ). Instead, it appears that you think that it is more important for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to ensure funding for afterschool programs and babysitting. If so, then you should definitely vote for Kerry. If he's elected, we'll probably have adequate funding for our afterschool programs and babysitting - right up to the minute the dirty bomb detonates. But then, will those programs matter anymore?
And why do we need those programs, anyway? My mother reared 4 of us as a single mom without government programs. She walked to a part-time job from the school bus stop every morning and left work in time to meet us at that same bus stop when we returned in the afternoon. There were no after school programs, and no free babysitting. But then, she didn't insist on having a "good" job, a "nice" house, a "nice" car, "nice" clothes, a big screen tv ( 11-inch, in those days ), and all that - all she wanted was enough to put a roof ( any roof ) over our heads, clothes ( not necessesarily the latest fashion ) on our back, and food ( gourmet, forget it ) on the table. If there was money left over, we got an 10-cent ice-cream cone as a treat, but that didn't happen very often.
I, myself, started working at the age of 12, picking fruits and vegetables for a local farmer. At 13, I was cleaning used bricks with a chisel and hammer, for a penny apiece. If I didn't work, I had no "spending money" - there was no such thing as an allowance. I began helping to support my family starting at age 14, working in the tobacco fields ( there was no summer vacation ). And I've been earning my own way ever since. It saddens me to see our country turning into a bunch of entitlement-minded whiners looking for a government handout to make their lives easier. I wish people would stop praying for a lighter load, and start praying for a stronger back.
As to Bush's "vacations". They are NOT just spent lying on the veranda sipping mint-juleps. His working vacations are just less formal WORK sessions in a more comfortable surrounding, interspersed with some needed down-time. For example, this week he will meet with Mexican President Vincente Fox for two days at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
And when he is NOT on vacation, he works harder then his predecessor ever did. (quote ):
"Under Clinton, things happened when they happened, and it was wise to pack a lunch and crossword puzzle. "Late" was not a four-letter word in his administration. "Clinton was almost never on time," says veteran CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante. "He kept everybody waiting and never thought twice about it."
And we do mean everybody. Plante recalls one occasion when the King and Queen of Denmark had the pleasure of cooling their heels for half an hour until the president got around to showing up where he was supposed to be."
You can read the rest of the article HERE
And talk about lining pockets. Apparently Mr. Kerry, by his actions, has been lining SOMEONE's pockets. A study by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that Kerry has received more money from lobbyists than ANY senator, current or former, dating back to 1989, when the center first starting collecting the data. Now, why would those lobbyists keep giving Kerry money if their employers weren't getting their pockets lined in return?
And then you end it in the typical Liberal Grand Finale - A withering accusation with absolutely no grounding in facts:
"Bush has skeletons in the closet. He must have something very embarrassing to conceal or he wouldn't stonewall the 9-11 investigation."
Well, of COURSE he has something to hide!! He MUST have. It's only logical. Isn't it?
It IS going to be an interesting year.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 01:39:20 PM · #45 |
Ron, it has been reported in the media that al Qaida has regrouped and strengthened because our resources went into invading Iraq. So we are still vulnerable to attacks by them. At best, all that can be said about this is that our president and his administration made a big blunder as to who to concentrate our efforts and resources toward in our war against terrorism.
The UN inspectors who were in the know all said that most, if not all, of Iraq's WMD's and their programs to produce them were destroyed and defunct as of 1994. Why didn't we listen to them? Why didn't we allow them to continue their work, but chose instead to rush off to war? If the administration had not believed that an Iraqi threat was immenent then why did rush off to war?
Joe Wilson, ambassador to Niger denied that Iraq was in dealings with Niger to acquire uranium from them. Why didn't we listen to him?
Bush chose to listen to whom he wanted to. |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 02:18:27 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Did the Bush admin put forth the idea that Hussein and al Qaida were teaming up and that Hussein was transferring weapons to al Qaida? Has this turned out to be true? |
Urm no, even the Whitehouse isn't that deluded to claim that one makes any sense. They've even stated that it doesn't make sense.
The sad thing is, last survey I saw 70% of the US apparently believe it is true, which just demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding. |
Can anyone provide a source that indicates the white house, or more specifically Bush, ever claimed this? I can't claim to have access to everything Bush ever said, but as I recall, what I did hear myself from Bush indicated evidence of links between Hussein and terrorism. (Even 60 Minutes reported a few years back, complete with documentation, that the Isrealies found tons of documentation of monetary and other types of support to terrorists recovered from Palestinian sources.) Then, the media and the leftwing pundits followed up by arguing there was no link between Hussein and Al Queda in terminology that made it sound like that's what Bush had said. I remember yelling at the TV at the time "That's not what he said!"
But, just like Oly with this ad (you admit you haven't seen it, but accept unquestioned the "reporting" - really the editorializing - that's fed to you) - people heard it reported and accepted it. |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 02:25:12 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, it has been reported in the media that al Qaida has regrouped and strengthened because our resources went into invading Iraq. So we are still vulnerable to attacks by them. At best, all that can be said about this is that our president and his administration made a big blunder as to who to concentrate our efforts and resources toward in our war against terrorism.
The UN inspectors who were in the know all said that most, if not all, of Iraq's WMD's and their programs to produce them were destroyed and defunct as of 1994. Why didn't we listen to them? Why didn't we allow them to continue their work, but chose instead to rush off to war? If the administration had not believed that an Iraqi threat was immenent then why did rush off to war?
Joe Wilson, ambassador to Niger denied that Iraq was in dealings with Niger to acquire uranium from them. Why didn't we listen to him?
Bush chose to listen to whom he wanted to. |
First of all, those are all good questions. I'll try to provide some answers, as best I can.
1) Al Qaeda has been FORCED to regroup BECAUSE of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our presence in Afghanistan has effectively eliminated their ability to train in that region. The ousting of Saddam Hussein also "probably" denied them access to the resources needed for them to develop and/or store WMD's ( those resources including, among others, Iraqi scientists, technology, and delivery capabilities ). And yes, we are quite vulnerable to attacks by them, though not as vulnerable as we were on 9/11 - at least not to major attacks of that nature ( it is extremely difficult to stop a fanatic with a pipe-bomb in his jacket from getting near enough to a bus to cause injuries or deaths ).
2) Whether our president and his administration made a big blunder or not is a matter that can be speculated until the cows come home, yet never answered to the satisfaction of all. And there will be no proof. We can never know whether Saddam actually would have provided WMD technology to Al Queda or not. The argument is therefore moot.
3) Why should we ( Bush ) have believed that the UN inspectors were, in FACT, "in the know". What evidence exists that should have given them greater credibility that that given to our own intelligence agencies ( and British and Israeli agencies, as well )? We did listen to them, but discounted their reports because our own intelligence led us to believe otherwise. Mind you, since then we have learned that much of our intelligence was faulty, but I, for one, still do not believe that the UN inspectors were "in the know" ( It is very difficult to be "in the know" when inspections are limited to the equivalent of 1 square mile in a country the size of California ).
4) We didn't allow them to continue their work, because Saddam did not allow them to do the work that they were charged to do. For example, Saddam would not allow them to interview scientists in private, without Bath party supervisors present. For another example, Saddam would not allow un-announced inspections.
5) I don't believe that we "rushed" off to war. We gave Saddam and the UN ample time and a long drawn out escalation of warnings that we were serious and that we were not just posturing, but would back up our talk with action if compliance was not forthcoming.
6) Absolutely correct. Bush DID choose who to listen to. As do you. As do I. If you were to say that Bush made an error in judgement in his choice of who to believe, I would not argue with your holding to that opinion. I only object when people say that BUSH LIED or purposefully MISLED or DECEIVED the American people.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 03:01:53 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
We don't attack the weakest nations for sport, or just because we can. |
Grenada, Nicaragua. |
Nicaragua
Are you referring to the 1909 "invasion"? |
No, I'm referring to the illegal mining of the harbor at Managua (or wherever the main port is), and the funding of the anti-government terrorists known as "Contras" with the profits of illegal arms sales to Iran.
If it wasn't for "legal technicalities" Mssrs. North and Poindexter would have served hard time instead of cashing in on multiple government pensions. Remember they were CONVICTED, with the verdicts overturned on appeal on the basis of legal procedures, not a refutation of the facts in evidence. But how they'd howl if a pot dealer got out because of an illegal search ....
I understand why Mr. Reagan may no longer remember this, but what's the cause of your blackout?
Message edited by author 2004-03-06 15:03:01. |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 06:12:46 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
We don't attack the weakest nations for sport, or just because we can. |
Grenada, Nicaragua. |
Nicaragua
Are you referring to the 1909 "invasion"? |
No, I'm referring to the illegal mining of the harbor at Managua (or wherever the main port is), and the funding of the anti-government terrorists known as "Contras" with the profits of illegal arms sales to Iran.
If it wasn't for "legal technicalities" Mssrs. North and Poindexter would have served hard time instead of cashing in on multiple government pensions. Remember they were CONVICTED, with the verdicts overturned on appeal on the basis of legal procedures, not a refutation of the facts in evidence. But how they'd howl if a pot dealer got out because of an illegal search ....
I understand why Mr. Reagan may no longer remember this, but what's the cause of your blackout? |
Uhhh. That would be your response that it was an "attack".
I wouldn't exactly call the mining of Sandino Harbor an "attack" since
a) the action was carried out by the CIA, not uniformed U.S. Military, and
b) the action was carried out without the knowledge and without the approval/consent of the President, the vice-president, the Congress, or any high ranking military official within the U.S. Government.
In fact, once the action was made known, a Senate resolution condemned it.
And, I wouldn't call "funding" the Contras an "attack" on Nicaragua either. Illegal, yes; a covert action, sure; an "attack", sorry, but no.
And, again, I wouldn't classify any of it as "attacking a weak nation for sport or just because we can".
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-03-06 18:14:49. |
|
|
|
03/06/2004 06:23:11 PM · #50 |
If there is "no liberal media bias" then why don't we hear about these on CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS et al?
Hero 9/11 Firefighter Defends Bush Ads
NewsMax.com
Friday, March 5, 2004
Hero New York City firefighter Mike Moran, whose words of defiance against Osama bin Laden helped rally the nation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, said Friday that he finds President Bush's campaign ads invoking the attacks "inspirational."
"I think they're inspirational," Moran told No. 1 radio host Rush Limbaugh. "They remind me of how lost I felt on 9/11," explained the hero smoke-eater, whose brother John, also a fireman, perished when he rushed into World Trade Center Tower Two to rescue stranded New Yorkers that day.
"Seeing on the news when George Bush went down to the Trade Center to put his arm around that fireman - the words he spoke - they were inspirational," Moran told Limbaugh. "They made me feel like, wow, this isn't just going to be another terrorist attack where we sit back on our a---- and do nothing."
Moran criticized family members of other 9/11 victims who have complained about the ads, saying, "It's nothing less than slimy." He said too many Americans seem to want to forget some of the images from that day that appear in the Bush ads.
Moran rose to national prominence five weeks after the attacks when he mounted the stage at Paul McCartney's "Concert for Heroes." As the show was being telecast worldwide, he spoke the words that resonated with Americans from coast to coast:
"All I can say, on behalf of my brother John and the twelve members from Ladder 3 that we've lost ... and all the people from my neighborhood, my hometown, Rockaway Beach, Queens, New York - our friends, our relatives, our neighbors, they are not gone because they are not forgotten."
Then, in one of the most memorable lines to come out of the disaster, Moran added:
"And I want to say one more thing, in the spirit of the Irish people: Osama bin Laden, you can kiss my royal Irish a--!"
AND
Some 9-11 Kin Send Letter Backing Bush Ad
Associated Press
March 6, 2004
More than a dozen families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks released a letter Saturday declaring their support for President Bush and his use of images of the destroyed World Trade Center in campaign ads.
"There is no better testament to the leadership of President Bush than Sept. 11," the letter states. "In choosing our next leader we must not forget that day if we are to have a meaningful conversation."
The "Open Letter to America," signed by 22 people who lost loved ones in the trade center, comes as other victims' families asked that the ads be pulled from the airwaves. The spots also show firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher.
"In the November election we will have a clear choice laid before the American people," the letter reads. "President Bush is rightly offering us that choice and the images of Sept. 11, although painful, are fundamental to that choice. The images in President Bush's campaign television ads are respectful of the memories of Sept. 11."
When asked about the ads on Saturday, President Bush said he will "continue to speak about the effects of 9-11 on our country and my presidency."
"How this administration handled that day, as well as the war on terror, is worthy of discussion. And I look forward to discussing that with the American people," he said.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told Fox News Channel on Saturday that he personally believed that the ads were inappropriate.
Jimmy Boyle, former president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, said he came up with the "Open Letter to America" after hearing that the president was being criticized for the ads.
"I don't think he's taking advantage of Sept. 11 and I feel that he's given us the leadership that we need," said Boyle, who said he will be voting for a Republican president for the first time in November.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 01:34:02 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 01:34:02 AM EDT.
|
