He's being sarcastic guys.Originally posted by Bob Fort:<br /> If only Kerry had been elected last Novembeer. We would be out of Iraq; enjoying a surplus in the national budget; marveling over non-contentious judgeship nominations; and wouldn't even have heard the names Katrina or Wilma.<br /><br />Oh Gee, maybe next time....
CJY - thats just plain kook talk. These people don't give a rats rear end about you me or who our president is. We are all infidels who DESERVE to die. 9/11 would have happened if Bush, Kerry, Gore or Clinton were in the White House. To assume otherwise is incredibly naieve. <br /><br />A certain political party in this country thinks we went to Iraq for oil? I think went to destabilize a region that was infected with immoral, murderous scum that wasn't providing anything positive for the world other than helping to reduce the over-population. <br /><br />That area of the world now has a taste of freedom. They voted on their own Constitution. The rest of the countries will follow suit.<br /><br /><br />SeanOriginally posted by CJY:<br /> Pointer,<br /><br />My point is, I could say that had W. never been elected, we would have never had the 9/11 attack in the first place. Would you have accepted that as fact w/o proof?
I agree. We have had ZERO attacks since 9/11. Who knows how many have been stopped. Those facts are NOT for public consumption. Why? It would cause public "panic" for those un-informed.<br /><br />CJY wrote:<br /><br />We should be fighting the war here? If Kerry had been elected that is what we would be doing.<br />
That's a simple comment( no answer) on a complex question. GWB was, at most, eight months into the office. <br /><br />What did President Clinton do? Answer: NOTHING. The "legacy" left by Pres. Clinton was a sure bet for an attack. After all, he had FOUR shots at Bin Laden and chose to back off, for "legal" reasons. <br /><br />Guess what, "legal" is all fine and good, unless someone is SHOOTING at you. US "legaleze" is NOT respected by our potential attackers. They KNOW that and they USE it.<br /><br />Blame directed at GWB, for 9/11, is grasping at straws, to say the least.<br /><br />When I see a coherent "idea" out of the Dem. party, I'll listen to it. For now, all they offer is criticism with NO plan.<br /><br />As far as Iraq goes, we've lost 2000 precious souls. The least in US miltary history. All of those souls are sacred, to us, but they CHOSE to go there and YES, I would send my sons, to fight for FREEDOM, for any people/society. If that is what they wanted to do. I think they would. I'd go myself, if they would have me.<br /><br />Freedom is NOT free. Once a society chooses to ignore/give up that freedom, we are doomed to the antics of OBL. That's what he wants.<br /><br />CJY and all "doubters". I respect your opinions. I will fight and die for your ability to express them. <br /><br />Would you do the same for me?Proof JB? So far the only successful attempt happened on W's watch. <br />
Right.<br /><br /><br />"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."<br />Who said it?<br /> That ,an exerpt from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998 <br /><br />"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." <br />Who said it? John Kerry October 9th, 2002 <br /><br /> <br />"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."<br />Who said it?<br />John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003 <br /> <br /> <br />Now, tell me again, how hunky-dory life would be right now with the socialist anti-war protestor at the helm....Chile please! I know you are probably just trollin them, but their party has been reduced to laughing stock.<br />And that is just what they get for catering to their lunatic fringe.Originally posted by Bob Fort:<br /> If only Kerry had been elected last Novembeer. We would be out of Iraq; enjoying a surplus in the national budget; marveling over non-contentious judgeship nominations; and wouldn't even have heard the names Katrina or Wilma.<br /><br />Oh Gee, maybe next time....
with respect, DJ, don't forget this:<br /><br />Originally posted by DJ<br />What did President Clinton do? Answer: NOTHING...After all, he had FOUR shots at Bin Laden and chose to back off<br />
Also don't forget that Bush the elder also had a shot at Saddam but chose to back off.U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush<br />By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith<br />Washington Post Staff Writers<br />Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01<br /><br />U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April....<br />
No,..... Not Really,........<br /><br />We were leading a UN response to the invasion of Kuwait,......<br />The UN Stopped the Roll into Bagdad,.......... Not President Bush...........Also don't forget that Bush the elder also had a shot at Saddam but chose to back off.<br />
Originally posted by jtexas:<br /> <br />Cute, trying to bash Bush for Clinton's retaliation for WTC attack number one. after all, CLINTON should've "went after Sadamn" himself. But nooo. Let's not make any waves over there.<br /><br />U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush<br />By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith<br />Washington Post Staff Writers<br />Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01<br /><br />U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April....Chose to back off? My eye, Jtexas. There will be no rewriting of history here on this forum on my watch.<br />Have you forgotten the "highway of death"? <br />You guys always (as evidenced by the link i myself provided above), remember the "attrocities" and "war crimes perpetrated by the US military", but then, you seem to have a sudden case of amnesia when you think you can blame Bush.<br /><br />Bush #41 was pressured by you guys to pull-out, durring the bloody (at least it was to the Iraqi mutants Fleeing Kuwait anyhow) battle into Bagdhad. If it weren't for ACLL, WPO, the UN and the endless Leftie whining on the nightly "news", he would've kept right on kickin their arse into Bagdaddy, and into oblivion!<br /><br />But nooooooooooo. We are "civilised" ,aren't we?Originally posted by jtexas:<br />Also don't forget that Bush the elder also had a shot at Saddam but chose to back off.