Bush's speech

[Gawain 0]

Quote

But, hey whats a few slight changes in definitions if it results in a good Bush bash.
-

It's consistent with the revisionist style they like to apply to history as a whole.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

George Bush Sr. is NOT a chickenhawk. He is A) famous and B) supports the war efforts but C) served admirably as a Navy flyer in WWII. George Sr. can advocate for wars, because he fought in one.

I've not heard Bush Sr. advocate the current war in Iraq. Of course I haven't heard him criticize it either, but he has conspicuously not supported it in the interviews I have seen.

If he thought it were a good idea to topple Saddam, he probably would have done it during Desert Storm.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

George Bush Sr. is NOT a chickenhawk. He is A) famous and B) supports the war efforts but C) served admirably as a Navy flyer in WWII. George Sr. can advocate for wars, because he fought in one.

I've not heard Bush Sr. advocate the current war in Iraq. Of course I haven't heard him criticize it either, but he has conspicuously not supported it in the interviews I have seen.

If he thought it were a good idea to topple Saddam, he probably would have done it during Desert Storm.

Doubtful considering the UN Resolution only authorized removing Iraqi Troops from Kuwait. Saudi Arabia wouldn't have supported it either and since we needed their airbases to conduct the war, it wouldn't have been possible.


-

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Doubtful considering the UN Resolution only authorized removing Iraqi Troops from Kuwait. Saudi Arabia wouldn't have supported it either and since we needed their airbases to conduct the war, it wouldn't have been possible.

Not disagreeing with you, but I don't believe those are the only reasons, or the biggest ones.

There were many reasons not to do it, including, but not limited to, not having a government ready to take Saddams place in order to fill the power vacuum. Bush Sr. understood this. Obviously W. did not.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Doubtful considering the UN Resolution only authorized removing Iraqi Troops from Kuwait. Saudi Arabia wouldn't have supported it either and since we needed their airbases to conduct the war, it wouldn't have been possible.

Not disagreeing with you, but I don't believe those are the only reasons, or the biggest ones.

There were many reasons not to do it, including, but not limited to, not having a government ready to take Saddams place in order to fill the power vacuum. Bush Sr. understood this. Obviously W. did not.

There is absolutely no evidence I am aware of to support your contention.


-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Thought you might be interested in Clintons view of the removal of SH

Quote

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens
the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the
world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi
government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government
that respects the rights of its people.
Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will
strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and
work with them effectively and prudently.

Quote

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 are
acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/981216-wh2.htm


-

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Thought you might be interested in Clintons view of the removal of SH

You must have missed the numerous posts I have made claiming Clinton sucked as well.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

There is absolutely no evidence I am aware of to support your contention

History tells us it is true. Topple a leader, a new one will take its place. You have to know the new one is going to be better than the old one. Bush Sr. touches on this in his book (or maybe it was Shwartzfoff in his book).

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Doubtful considering the UN Resolution only authorized removing Iraqi Troops from Kuwait. Saudi Arabia wouldn't have supported it either and since we needed their airbases to conduct the war, it wouldn't have been possible.

Not disagreeing with you, but I don't believe those are the only reasons, or the biggest ones.

There were many reasons not to do it, including, but not limited to, not having a government ready to take Saddams place in order to fill the power vacuum. Bush Sr. understood this. Obviously W. did not.

Don't forget that G.H.W. Bush was also an ambassador to the UN once upon a time. He has a different take on the UN's role in the world than W. Personally, I agree with W., but the world was different when his father was President. So, the UN mandate held a lot more weight. As he said at the conclusion of the 100 hour ground operation, "Our objective is complete. Kuwait is liberated."

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Thought you might be interested in Clintons view of the removal of SH

You must have missed the numerous posts I have made claiming Clinton sucked as well.

My point wasn't whether Clinton sucked. I just found it interesting that Clinton also thought the only way to resolve the issue with Iraq was to remove SH from power and he seemed inclined to do it militarily. I think it would be an interesting question for a journalist to ask in an interview with Clinton although, I doubt he would answer it honestly.

[peckerhead 0]

I actually watched the whole speech. He made one ironic statement about OBL. He said that Bin Laden was a coward because he sends young men off to their deaths but will not go along for the ride.

Hmmm? Who does that remind you of?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The F-102 Delta Dagger was an active part of US Air Defense Command from 1956 to 1974. Most of the F-102s and F-106s in service were part of ANG units and over 1000 F-102s were made. Hardly obsolete. The F-106 served into the 1990s. Consider the B-52, in service since 1955, it will probably outlast the B-1 and B-2.

I grew up on and around AF bases in the 50's and 60’s. I thought the planes and the pilots were way too kewl. Notice the dates on that.. till 1974.. its was VERY outdated and being phased out even when he first got into one. The service life of many of the front line aircraft was VERY short. The conversations at the weekly O Club Saturday Night parties were always about the planes. There was constant change and turnover in aircraft types. Each generation had better performance and capabilities and were cycled constantly. UNLIKE the B-52 which was updated, the fighters were old news VERY rapidly. History is your friend.. if you would actually go study it a bit. I lived thru it so its very clear in my mind.

Quote

While active duty units were in Vietnam, it was ANG units that took up the slack to be the readiness to intercept a Soviet attack. You know that the reports of his not showing up were bogus right? Or, did you too believe Dan Rather?

It has come from far more than one source than just Dan Rather But people like you refuse to believe your pseudo-righteous hypocrite you call president would do such a thing. There have been more than one member of those units who have said so. Before he found god he was a drunk and a blow freak... just like most of the children of the privileged of the time. Again... all you have to do is actually use critical thinking skills and get your news from more than Fox News or from the local pulpit. But I see VERY little of that critical thinking coming from that quarter.

Quote

So, you disparage the service of those who are in the National Guard? That's lovely. I'm sure they appreciate the thought. What about those who are in the reserve units? Does their service count too? Or, is it only active duty only that deserve kudos? How about those with the Army's Civil Affairs units, all reserve. How about the two Army SF groups in the National Guard? Pretty warped if you ask me.

Point of fact.. during the Vietnam era( I was there in ACTIVE DUTY from 1971 to 1979) the guard and reserve were far different than today’s guard and reserve. Perhaps you should go read about it and learn something about it before you ASSume you know something about the military in those days. We had a VERY large military at the time and for most people it was impossible to get into guard units unless your family had ties and only IMPORTANT families had those ties. Today we have a much smaller military that relies heavily on reserve and guard components. So you can go get yourself a nice big ladder and climb down off your high indignant horse.


And to Gravity Master

Quote

First she defines "Chickenhawk as:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A chickenhawk is A) a famous person who B) supports the CURRENT wars but C) never served in the military.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Then she changes the definition to:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


George W. Bush is a chickenhawk. He is A) famous and B) supports the war efforts but C) did not really serve in the military.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But, hey whats a few slight changes in definitions if it results in a good Bush bash.

That was a direct cut and paste. That came right from the website BUT if you had actualy READ the website you would realize that.. You do know how to read .. right??

Bush is a dangerous idiot who in his diminished mental capacity has managed to get us into a quagmire. He took all this yes man advice from his Ultra Rightie YES MEN and went forward with all his swaggering Texican bravado. Too bad he does not actually think before he acts.. a couple thousand Americans would still be alive and we could have actually won the war on terror. After Clinton I wanted a president I could be proud of... instead we get one far worse to be ashamed of.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

That was a direct cut and paste. That came right from the website BUT if you had actualy READ the website you would realize that.. You do know how to read .. right??

Putting aside your condescending tone for a minute, yes I do know how to read. I usually just don't read websites from shrill screeching "Bush is th Anti-Christ" moronic babble. But then again, why would I? You cut and pasted the "truth" for us. I simple gave you enough credit and assumed you had actually read it and were representing it as inline with your opinion before posting. Apparently the question is, did you read it? And if you did, why didn't you pick out the discrepancy?

[crozby 0]

Quote

Did you ever read what Powell said about the speech he had to give to the UN about WMDs?

Can you provide a link to it?

I recently read the trucks he claimed were mobile chemical weapons factories were in fact just trucks designed to produce hydrogen for meteorological balloons. Not only that, but they were built to a design sold to SH by Britain.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Can you provide a link to it?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Also check out http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm

and
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

[freethefly 6]

The F-102 was in fact deemed unsuitable for any combat and by 1969 they have all left Vietnam.



The F-102 Delta Dagger was an active part of US Air Defense Command from 1956 to 1974. Most of the F-102s and F-106s in service were part of ANG units and over 1000 F-102s were made. Hardly obsolete. The F-106 served into the 1990s. Consider the B-52, in service since 1955, it will probably outlast the B-1 and B-2.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


( in Vietnam the Guard did NOT go... period.. so it was a good place for the rich boys to run off to while maintaining the appearance of serving.. and Bushie did not even bother to show up.. and had some mediocre performance reports even before that.) Most of the rest of the clowns there in the executive branch did not even bother to do that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


While active duty units were in Vietnam, it was ANG units that took up the slack to be the readiness to intercept a Soviet attack. You know that the reports of his not showing up were bogus right? Or, did you too believe Dan Rather?


A few Pacific-based squadrons got F-102s, the first being the 16th FIS based at Naha AFB on Okinawa which re-equipped in March of 1959. It was in the Pacific theatre that the F-102 was to achieve its only taste of combat. Aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in South Vietnam in March of 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the Vietnam war. F-102As stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in Sout Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969. The F-102A established an excellent safety record in Vietnam. In almost ten years of flying air defense and a few combat air patrols for SAC B-52s, only 15 F-102As were lost. Although a few missions were flown over North Vietnam, the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat. However, one of my references has an F-102A of the 509th FIS being lost to an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-21 while flying a CAP over Route Package IV on February 3, 1968. Two F-102As were lost to AAA/small arms fire and four were destroyed on the ground by the Viet Cong and eight were lost in operational accidents.

Strange as it may seem, the F-102A actually did fly some close-support missions over the South, even though the aircraft was totally unsuited for this role. These operations started in 1965 at Tan Son Nhut using the 405 FW alert detachment. Operating under the code-name "Project Stovepipe", they used their heat sinking Falcon missiles to lock onto heat sources over the Ho Chi Minh trail at night, often Viet Cong campfires. This was more of a harassment tactic than it was serious assault. They would even fire their radar-guided missiles if their radars managed to lock onto something. The pilots were never sure if they actually hit anything, but they would sometimes observe secondary explosions.

The F-102s soon switched to a day role, firing the 12 unguided FFAR rockets from the missile bays, using the optical sight. 618 day sorties were flown, the last one being flown at the end of 1965. One F-102A was downed by ground fire during one of these rocket attacks.

There were some later missions flown, especially in Mayday emergencies when the 102's were the fastest response available in the South (2 1/2 minutes over the fence, far faster than the F-4).

During the early 1960s, the F-102A was gradually replaced in the ADC by the McDonnell F-101B Voodoo and the Convair F-106 Delta Dart. By mid-1961, the number of F-102As in service with the ADC was down to 221. However, by the end of 1969, with the exception of a squadron maintained in Iceland, all ADC F-102As had been transferred to the Air National Guard. The F-102As stationed in the Pacific had been withdrawn in December of 1969.

The only F-102As still in service with the USAF at the beginning of 1970 were all stationed overseas. At that time, the USAF still retained a few F-102A squadrons in Germany and the Netherlands. In the early 1970s, European-based F-102As were replaced by F-4 Phantoms. By the end of June 1973, the number of active F-102As had been reduced to ten.

The last ADC unit to operate the F-102A, the 57th FIS based at Keflavik in Iceland finally traded in its F-102As for McDonnell F-4C Phantoms in mid-1973.

As they left USAF service, most F-102As were transferred to the Air National Guard. First to receive the F-102A was the 182nd FIS of the Texas ANG, receiving the plane in mid-1960. By 1966, ANG inventories amounted to 339 F-102As. Twenty-three ANG units ultimately got F-102As, including ANG squadrons of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, North Dakota, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Oregion, Maine Vermont, Tennessee, Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, and California.

A 1967 proposal to modify F-102As into RF-102As as the standard ANG reconnaissance aircraft was deemed infeasible and was not proceeded with.

The F-102A was not equipped at the factory for midair refuelling. However, there were some examples of the F-102A that were fitted in the field with probe and drogue inflight-refuelling probes mounted immediately aft of the cockpit on the right-hand side of the fuselage. These were fitted for the purpose of ferrying aircraft from the US to Southeast Asia. The probes were removed upon arrival. Some ANG F-102As were also fitted with these midair refuelling probes.

In the late 1960s, Convair proposed a close air support version of the F-102 equipped with an internally-mounted cannon. The USAF was not particularly interested and this idea got no further than the preliminary planning stage.

Large-scale retirement of the F-102A from the ANG began in late 1969 and continued throughout the 1970s. The last F-102A finally left ANG service in October of 1976, when the 199th FIS of the Hawaii ANG traded in their Delta Daggers for F-4C Phantoms. Most of the retired F-102As ended up in the boneyards at the Davis-Monthan AFB storage facility. Many were subsequently converted into remote-controlled drone aircraft.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Did you ever read what Powell said about the speech he had to give to the UN about WMDs?

Can you provide a link to it?

I recently read the trucks he claimed were mobile chemical weapons factories were in fact just trucks designed to produce hydrogen for meteorological balloons. Not only that, but they were built to a design sold to SH by Britain.

A triumph of faith-based intelligence from the Bush administration.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

The F-102 Delta Dagger was an active part of US Air Defense Command from 1956 to 1974. Most of the F-102s and F-106s in service were part of ANG units and over 1000 F-102s were made. Hardly obsolete. The F-106 served into the 1990s. Consider the B-52, in service since 1955, it will probably outlast the B-1 and B-2.

Yes, but W didn't fly B52s. The planes he flew were quite well suited to protecting Texas and Alabama from an invasion by Mississippi, but not much else.

PS Rather isn't the ONLY source on Bush's miserable service record.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

The F-102 Delta Dagger was an active part of US Air Defense Command from 1956 to 1974. Most of the F-102s and F-106s in service were part of ANG units and over 1000 F-102s were made. Hardly obsolete. The F-106 served into the 1990s. Consider the B-52, in service since 1955, it will probably outlast the B-1 and B-2.

Yes, but W didn't fly B52s. The planes he flew were quite well suited to protecting Texas and Alabama from an invasion by Mississippi, but not much else.

PS Rather isn't the ONLY source on Bush's miserable service record.

Let me correct that for you:

Quote

PS Rather isn't the ONLY incorrect source on Bush's miserable service record.

The first ANG units to receive F102s were Texas. Its role as an interceptor was perfectly suited to the southern border where Mexico wasn't particularly stable at the time and Cuba was still a fresh thorn in our side. The F102 also flew in escort capacities to B52s.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The F-102 Delta Dagger was an active part of US Air Defense Command from 1956 to 1974. Most of the F-102s and F-106s in service were part of ANG units and over 1000 F-102s were made. Hardly obsolete. The F-106 served into the 1990s. Consider the B-52, in service since 1955, it will probably outlast the B-1 and B-2.

Yes, but W didn't fly B52s. The planes he flew were quite well suited to protecting Texas and Alabama from an invasion by Mississippi, but not much else.

PS Rather isn't the ONLY source on Bush's miserable service record.

Let me correct that for you:

Quote

PS Rather isn't the ONLY incorrect source on Bush's miserable service record.

.

What next, are you going to claim he didn't have a DUI conviction?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The F-102 Delta Dagger was an active part of US Air Defense Command from 1956 to 1974. Most of the F-102s and F-106s in service were part of ANG units and over 1000 F-102s were made. Hardly obsolete. The F-106 served into the 1990s. Consider the B-52, in service since 1955, it will probably outlast the B-1 and B-2.

Yes, but W didn't fly B52s. The planes he flew were quite well suited to protecting Texas and Alabama from an invasion by Mississippi, but not much else.

PS Rather isn't the ONLY source on Bush's miserable service record.

Let me correct that for you:

Quote

PS Rather isn't the ONLY incorrect source on Bush's miserable service record.

.

What next, are you going to claim he didn't have a DUI conviction?

I've made no such claim. Nor have I tried to disparage other politician's similar convictions, and we're not talking about that are we?

It has been proven that the claims of Bush's non-service are false. In fact, when the "left" leaning media tried to push the issue, it cost the jobs of at least a half-dozen people, including the career of one of the most noteworthy (if not objective) journalists in US history.

If the statute of limitations isn't in effect, I wouldn't blame W. for suing CBS, Rather and the like, for libel for all they're worth once he's out of office. In fact, I'm surprised there isn't a criminal investigation into who produced false government documents. Wouldn't that just make your day if W. ended up owning a major network?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It has been proven that the claims of Bush's non-service are false. In fact, when the "left" leaning media tried to push the issue, it cost the jobs of at least a half-dozen people, including the career of one of the most noteworthy (if not objective) journalists in US history.

THere goes that EVIL MEDIA again.. always trying to paint our savior with the truth.

OOPS more reading to do.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671




The initial page I examined is a chronological listing of Bush's service record. This document charts active duty days served from the time of his enlistment. His first year, a period of extensive training, young Bush is credited with serving 226 days. In his second year in the Guard, Bush is shown to have logged a total of 313 days. After Bush got his wings in June 1970 until May 1971, he is credited with a total of 46 days of active duty. From May 1971 to May 1972, he logged 22 days of active duty.

Then something happened. From May 1, 1972 until April 30, 1973 -- a period of twelve months -- there are no days shown, though Bush should have logged at least thirty-six days service (a weekend per month in addition to two weeks at camp).




Bush has found military readiness to be a handy campaign issue. Yet even though more than two decades have passed since Bush left the Air National Guard, some military sources still bristle at his service record -- and what effect it had on readiness. "In short, for the several hundred thousand dollars we tax payers spent on getting [Bush] trained as a fighter jock, he repaid us with sixty-eight days of active duty. And God only knows if and when he ever flew on those days," concludes a military source. "I've spent more time cleaning up latrines than he did flying.">

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_uggabugga_archive.html

[jloirsdaan 0]

But President Clinton was very reluctant to send troops in.

He, unlike the current president, didn't take it lightly. Just putting troops in harms way for no good reason. Yes he sent troops, but President Clinton, had the rest of the U.N. and N.A.T.O. supporting the conflict.

People can claim all they like that we have a "coalition" together here. I have been here twice...and I'm proud to serve my country. I will do whatever the Commander in Chief orders....until the day I'm back in the civilian sector. But I can and will voice my opinion. This was a meaningless conflict where almost 2000 of my fellow soliders, marines, airmen, and seamen...have lost their lives. And for what....first it was WMD's....now it's terrorists. When I was first over here....April '03-April '04, there wasn't really that many insurgents....honestly. But towards the end this became more and more of a problem.

So the others are right when they say we have brought terrorism to Iraq. As horrible a person Saddam was....he had no link to Al-Quida...or any other terrorist organization. This came out through people who work for THIS President. Now almost daily Iraqis are being killed at a alarming rate. But wait....we are over here to HELP these people.....seems like we have brought nothing but pain, sorrow, and suffering for the people of Iraq.

I have personally talked to many of these citizens. The first tour some were genuinely happy that we had overthrown Saddam....while still some we're hesitant. As the end of that tour drew to an end more and more said that as bad as he was....they had been better off with Saddam....they have said that they had more power, water, less violence in the streets while he was their leader. Now 90% of the people I see and talk to wish we would have just left him in place. They are sick and tired of being scared to leave their homes. I could go on and on.....I too say we have to be here now....for the nearly 2000 dead....we have to make this a success for these heroes....but I ask the question....why were we here in the first place....no WMD's; and no terrorists until we showed up????

Nothing here is a matter of opinion (other than my support of Pres. Clinton) both the WMD's and the terrorism issue have been put out buy commissions and memebers of the Republican party. So, you can beat the dead horse of which presidents served where and so on. But it seems to me that this President takes the sending of our troops to war very lightly.

This also is a matter of opinion. But it angers me that someone could seemingly take my life and others for granted and send service members to war with seemingly no good cause...or at best a cause that keeps changing as one reason is disproved!

Jordan

Go Fast, Dock Soft.

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

But President Clinton was very reluctant to send troops in.

He, unlike the current president, didn't take it lightly. Just putting troops in harms way for no good reason. Yes he sent troops, but President Clinton, had the rest of the U.N. and N.A.T.O. supporting the conflict.

People can claim all they like that we have a "coalition" together here. I have been here twice...and I'm proud to serve my country. I will do whatever the Commander in Chief orders....until the day I'm back in the civilian sector. But I can and will voice my opinion. This was a meaningless conflict where almost 2000 of my fellow soliders, marines, airmen, and seamen...have lost their lives. And for what....first it was WMD's....now it's terrorists. When I was first over here....April '03-April '04, there wasn't really that many insurgents....honestly. But towards the end this became more and more of a problem.

So the others are right when they say we have brought terrorism to Iraq. As horrible a person Saddam was....he had no link to Al-Quida...or any other terrorist organization. This came out through people who work for THIS President. Now almost daily Iraqis are being killed at a alarming rate. But wait....we are over here to HELP these people.....seems like we have brought nothing but pain, sorrow, and suffering for the people of Iraq.

I have personally talked to many of these citizens. The first tour some were genuinely happy that we had overthrown Saddam....while still some we're hesitant. As the end of that tour drew to an end more and more said that as bad as he was....they had been better off with Saddam....they have said that they had more power, water, less violence in the streets while he was their leader. Now 90% of the people I see and talk to wish we would have just left him in place. They are sick and tired of being scared to leave their homes. I could go on and on.....I too say we have to be here now....for the nearly 2000 dead....we have to make this a success for these heroes....but I ask the question....why were we here in the first place....no WMD's; and no terrorists until we showed up????

Nothing here is a matter of opinion (other than my support of Pres. Clinton) both the WMD's and the terrorism issue have been put out buy commissions and memebers of the Republican party. So, you can beat the dead horse of which presidents served where and so on. But it seems to me that this President takes the sending of our troops to war very lightly.

This also is a matter of opinion. But it angers me that someone could seemingly take my life and others for granted and send service members to war with seemingly no good cause...or at best a cause that keeps changing as one reason is disproved!

Awesome post. I don't see anyone rushing to argue with this guy... QED.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Can you provide a link to it?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Also check out http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm

and
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Powell's chief of staff described the "intel" (sic) he was to provide to the UN as a "Chinese Laundry List" supplied by the White House. In private Powell is said to have decribed it as .

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.