NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I'm sure the President recalls a lot of things that *hic!* may or may not have actually happened *hic!* during that stretch. :puke Way to make an intelligent argument. You disagree with the man fine but you make yourself sound stupid when you make personal attacks like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 what about that statement is bulls***? /looking for something to do That is totally bulls***. Bush was not the only one who thought Iraq was loaded down with WMD. Al Gore, Bill Clinton and numerous Senate Democrats spoke about the problem of WMD in Iraq. The only thing different about Bush compared to all them was that he acted on his information. If your like was in charge the Taliban would still be running things in Afganistan and Osama Bin Laden would still be knocking down office towers full of people. The price of action is always far less than the price of inaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Bush is total bulls***. Sunday he says he will make all records available on the questionable mising year. Monday the White House says there are no more records. Tuesday the White House releases more records which answer nothing, only that Bush got paid a few times and had dental work (done free at taxpayers expenses). Wednesday the White House says they will release nothing more. Days of our lives. Every day a new installment in "The BU stands for BUll and the SH stands for s***." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 yea right, im sure they where testing weather ballons. if you belive everything you hear from your sources, you might be the dumbest person of all. :headshake Good grief... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 That is totally bulls***. Bush was not the only one who thought Iraq was loaded down with WMD. Al Gore, Bill Clinton and numerous Senate Democrats spoke about the problem of WMD in Iraq. The only thing different about Bush compared to all them was that he acted on his information. If your like was in charge the Taliban would still be running things in Afganistan and Osama Bin Laden would still be knocking down office towers full of people. The price of action is always far less than the price of inaction. There is a difference between Clinton, Gore et al. that you mentioned and Bush. They didn't defy international law to invade another sovereign nation after knowingly lying (it's proven that Powell met with Blair and Bush the morning of Feb. 5 when he was going to give the UN speech and said "I'm not reading this. It's bulls***.") That's not even counting the uranium in the SotU speech lie, the 9/11 Iraq connection or the Osama/Iraq connection. And Nuke, if you're so worried about oppressive regimes, why have we propped up so many? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Way to make an intelligent argument. You disagree with the man fine but you make yourself sound stupid when you make personal attacks like that. On Sunday, Russert asked Bush if he wpuld be willing to release EVERYTHING concerning his Air National Guard service if it would clear things up. Bush said, "Yes. Absolutely." The White House has backed so far away from that in the last 3 days as to be laughable. They have produced sometimes illegible photocopies of pay records from some of the time in question, and now a dental exam record that shows Bush was at least on site in AL on Jan 6. The day was already accounted for in other documents. This kind of "evidence" of gainful employment and carrying out job duties is laughed out of civil courts daily, yet the nation is supposed to accept this as the proof that Bush did his bit in its entirety. Pay stubs and am image of Bush's teeth still don't account for 5 months in '72 when Bush didn't chow up for training, don't explain why he missed his second physical, and why he was disqualified from the flight training policy. They don't reveal what was blacked out in those entries explaining his arrest record on his Guard application. Are we really supposed to believe that wreath-stealing and roudiness at a college football game were the sensitive matters that were blacked out? You don't suspect that, just possibly, DUI information of the like was deleted as potentially damaging before the 2000 campaign? If his arrests involved alcohol or drugs, he probably would have not been selected for air training, as these were highly coveted spots in a self-admitted haven for well-heeled young white men to avoid the draft durinf Viet Nam. I sincerely thank you and respect you for your service and dedication to the country, and every citizen owes a debt of gratitude to every serviceman. I just honestly don't think this President respects you or the US citizens enough to sell anything straight. I won't accuse you of being or sounding stupid. Ever. In fact, it takes a special kind of intelligence to be able to conceive the rationalizations necessary to keep intact the mental house of cards that allows on to still think this President and this Administration is on the up and up despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. As Rep/ Waxman and many, many others have said in regard to WMD as war justification, "the Administration asked the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to rely on information that your own experts knew was not credible." If Bush is willing to send servicemen off to kill and die, based on knowingly trumped up allegations, I think I have the right to question why certain records from the Drunken Bush days do not seem to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 There is a difference between Clinton, Gore et al. that you mentioned and Bush. They didn't defy international law to invade another sovereign nation after knowingly lying (it's proven that Powell met with Blair and Bush the morning of Feb. 5 when he was going to give the UN speech and said "I'm not reading this. It's bulls***.") That's not even counting the uranium in the SotU speech lie, the 9/11 Iraq connection or the Osama/Iraq connection. And Nuke, if you're so worried about oppressive regimes, why have we propped up so many? I am worried about regimes that threaten the security of this country. Afghanistan and Iraq certianly qualify and they were dealt with in due course. BTW did Iraq not defy international law when it invaded and raped Kuwait? Did it not violate international law for the 12 years between the end of the Gulf War and the US invasion? Did it not shoot at our aircraft that were enforcing a UN mandated "no fly zone" in the north and south of that country? Had it not been for U.S. "aggression" back in 1991 Iraq would own both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and with them the majority of the worlds oil supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I am worried about regimes that threaten the security of this country. Afghanistan and Iraq certianly qualify and they were dealt with in due course. BTW did Iraq not defy international law when it invaded and raped Kuwait? Did it not violate international law for the 12 years between the end of the Gulf War and the US invasion? Did it not shoot at our aircraft that were enforcing a UN mandated "no fly zone" in the north and south of that country? Had it not been for U.S. "aggression" back in 1991 Iraq would own both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and with them the majority of the worlds oil supply. Didn't Kuwait defy international law when it slant drilled into Iraq? And also, what about April Glaspie (US Ambassador in Kuwait)'s statement to Saddam saying before Saddam invaded "The US has no stance on your border conflict." And Nuke, I'm still waiting for the "weapons of mass destruction related program activities" to be found. Can we say they're stretching for a real cause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Didn't Kuwait defy international law when it slant drilled into Iraq? And also, what about April Glaspie (US Ambassador in Kuwait)'s statement to Saddam saying before Saddam invaded "The US has no stance on your border conflict." And Nuke, I'm still waiting for the "weapons of mass destruction related program activities" to be found. Can we say they're stretching for a real cause? Yeah, she said we didnt have a stance on their dispute. You make it sound like she said "go invade, we dont care". Big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Yeah, she said we didnt have a stance on their dispute. You make it sound like she said "go invade, we dont care". Big difference. What about the slant drilling issue? More than a few people have suggested that teh US put an embolneded Kwait up to it by assuring we would jump in and save the day if/when Iraq retaliated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 What about the slant drilling issue? More than a few people have suggested that teh US put an embolneded Kwait up to it by assuring we would jump in and save the day if/when Iraq retaliated. If you could prove that then you'd have a point. That sounds like speculation to me by Hussein sympathizers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 The price of action is always far less than the price of inaction. and neither of them can touch the price of sugar. Your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 and neither of them can touch the price of sugar. Your point? The price of sugar has trended way down... And would be a lot less if a powerful Washington PAC hadn't pigeonholed congress into keeping a bunch of unnecesary subsidies into the tiny US sugar market.... But then again this discussion wasn't about sugar was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 The price of sugar has trended way down... There goes Fanny May's excuse for why they couldn't make a profit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slant_drilling There's some slant drilling info for you Nuke. It's even from an encyclopedia. Just google "Kuwait slant drilling" and you get a lot of hits. Also, Nuke...if Iraq was such a huge threat then why have all the other countries in the region said they are not afraid of him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.