I was implying that if Clinton had prevented the 9/11 attack like he should have, we wouldn't be at war. Therfor there would be less of a Bush sucks attitude.All Clinton had to do was his job, is it asking much? Then listening to his and other reactions to how Bush conducted things was pathetic, talk about hypocrisy. </T
When you have bullets from an AK-47 flying past your head by someone hiding behind a child I must disagree with you - the soldiers involved do go through a process of validation - they are not robots they are humans - and with the firepower you hold in your hands and the destruction it causes with sometimes unintended consequence
i don't know does blair count. Nope, we're talking US intel here. Blair doesn't have access to that. And Blair's own intel suggests we messaged things to fit our agenda. So, let's stick to US people. Who in the US says this intel was good, in a position to know? Let's stick with facts (they were
Basicly to sum them up, the Clinton administration had knowledge of four hijackers and their plans, yet did NOTHING. Yet somehow Bush is the worst president here? Hmmm. This thread is on Bush, not Clinton. What do you think saves Bush from the worst ever title? What are his best accomplishments? Ho
sorry, this got posted twice.
My first comment is snippy, sorry: Are you in the oil lobby? No I am not - why would you ask such a question to my post? Don't get huffy. You articulate the pos
My first comment is snippy, sorry: Are you in the oil lobby? No I am not - why would you ask such a question to my post? Don't get huffy. You articulate the pos
I will say this - until you see the cost - and know that you must validate your reason for being there - you can't make such definitive statements. my only problem with your comments is the idea that this thread undermines the troops. My partner is a vet. My mother -in- law has 5, yes 5, kids serving
tell me what you do want and what you would do That's a fair challenge. Thank you. First, let me say I have also seen things nobody should ever see: I covered and photographed ground zero immediately after the planes hit the world trade center. Please read my other posts as to my position on Iraq.
Sadam didn't have WMD's they are mistaken. Besides our Veep, please tell me one person, just one, who does not think we had a critical breakdown of intelligence that lead us to a faulty conclusion regarding WMDs in Iraq. I can tell you a bunch who say we were very mistaken: David Kaye, Bush's person t
I'd love to know how much has been spent in Iraq since this whole mess started. The white house budget office says rougly 1 trillion dollars.
Oil stops flowing - no heat, no food, no medical supplies, on and on... Do you agree? Will you allow yourself to think about it? My first comment is snippy, sorry: Are you in the oil lobby? After that, though, I appreciate your position. Again, I repeat: I don't know if the invasion of Ira
Bush is a goober of biblical proportions Gotta love this. Thank you. I heard Andy Card speak shortly after he left the White House. Did he talk about any of this? Nope. He told about how he cried the first time he walked into the Oval Office. I'll cry when Bush walks out.
Oh, and Bush, if you're get to read this, you no need to wait for history to deliver its verdict, judgement...world condemnation of your actions is already in. I'm glad to have an opinion of someone outside the US on this. Thank you. We (here in the US) always think we are the center of the universe.
Bush started something that he knew could not or would not end. That I hadn't considered, it's a good point. As for not touching this thread with a ten foot pole, I'm glad you did. I'm actually pretty centrist in my views, which since this is a slightly different group, may not know. Your son's expe
Joe: Do you recognize any responsibility or authority of the United States to enforce the ceasefire of 91? That was not the reason given to go to war. If it had been, we might be having a different discussion. The reason we went to war was 1) wmd's and 2) to "fight the terrorists there so we don't hav
No way, Carter comes in at a close second and he was worse than Bush will ever be. Really? Hmmm.
We know from the women scientists that Biological warfare materials were still being produced and worked on. Actually, we know no such thing. We know women scientist said they new other scientists who may have worked on WMDs. We haven't found any scientists who said the DID work themselves on WMD. N
I'm not in the mood to discuss this topic. I was just wondering why it is still in the Personal Computer area... I'm asking the same question. I can't seem to get it moved. Frankly, it's kinda nice, I've read some opinions from others who don't normally respond to this sort of thing. But it was an err
That is the bugga boo of trusting others when others can trump your facts with their facts which are not facts, just opinions. yes some say as yours do. And some say as Mine do. And in the end, it is just our derriere. In who we believe. Yes, but I told you who my sources who say the intel
Actually, this is the same article as the other, just with a different title. It got lost in cyber space and I reposted it, then it reappeared again after our thread started on the other. Now, I don't know how to delete it. M
not being liked is not against the law anymore. Just my opinion, dude. That's what I'm writing: my opinion and take on things based on my experiences. Discount my opinion if you'd like, no sweat. Follow the trail on Rat boy Rove and there is dirt. Perhaps it'll lead to Bush. Even if it does, Bush will never be impeached. That's my opinion.
We know more, but know we know not all yet. And knowing that we know not all yet, we know that it is still debatable. Facts are not. Hypothesis are. Hypothesis are debatable. Yes. But what David Kaye has said on the intel I take as fact. Why? He's the boots on the ground who was sent to gather the fa
I'm thinking that's a Rush Limbaugh approach. Sounds like him. Yeah, I'd be upset if I was indicted. And yes, mountain, meet mole hill. Bottom Line: Rat boy Rove makes my skin crawl. I'd love to see him investigated. And I base that on having met the man, and hearing him speak, live.
"The committee chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, said he believed last year that the White House was correct in repudiating the uranium claim. "Now I don't know whether it's accurate or not. That's the whole question," Roberts, a Republican, said in an interview." From CBS news. Originally, there was more in the state of the union about the urnanium. The CIA (according to the Washington Post) yanked most of it for lack of evidence. They meant for all of it to be yanked, but it wasn't. Later,
JoeUser Forums