Scott McClellan's new book on his tenure at the White House.

sleeperjeeper said:
Not to mention that Bush's strategy for fighting forested fires was to rent national forests to lumber companies. If there are no trees, there will be less of a chance of a forest fire. Gotta love that logic.

I have long advocated that election candidates should were the logos of their sponsers like nascar drivers do. That way at least you know who your voting for.

You need to go take a forestry lesson. The natural life cycle of a forest includes forest fires. In fact, your state's precious Redwoods NEED fire in order for their seed pods to open up and germinate.

Loggers go in and clear out the old growth trees - dead and/or old trees that would burn faster. Dense forest = hotter, faster moving fire. Try it sometime man - build yourself two small fires - on one, throw a young, green log. On the other, throw a bunch of dried, dead logs. See which one gets roaring and hot first.

Your simplified election advertising campaign would work great for you and your fellow Democrats! I know you people need to keep it simple so you can understand. But...maybe if you really saw the big picture and what your candidates stood for, you might think twice about voting for them.

Keep voting for the tree huggers who dont want loggers to do their job. Then bitch and complain when you have more and more fires chasing you from your Hollywood mansions.
 
Last edited:
5-90 said:
And the Nobel has been becoming a political stalking horse of late as well. Slowly, and not very obvious, but everything is heading that way.

Let's see - Gore sez that we're causing global warming. We may be augmenting it somewhat - but note that climates tend to run in cycles, and we're on an uptick anyhow. The slope of the curve increased about 150 years ago (coincident with the Industrial Age,) but it's been on the way up. IIRC, Ice Ages follow a cycle of 35,000-40,000 years, and it's been something like 17,000-18,000 since the last one (don't hold me to those as "hard" numbers - I've been working on other things of late.)

Gore's most popular lie - he "invented" the Internet. Maybe it wasn't him what said it, but he's not come out to try to debunk it. The Internet grew out of DARPANet, after Universities were added to DARPANet to increase information content. The core of the Internet has been around since the late 1950's/early 1960's.

Gore "has the solution" to global warming. Really? Let's see him put it into place. The "solution" would require two things: 1) a global approach to a global issue. 2) It's actually a significant problem to begin with, and not an uptick in a known climatologicial cycle.

Also, Gore is a statist Democrat (worst sort,) who wishes to push the welfare state on everyone. You want to do worse than a statist Democrat? Fine - elect a Socialist - there's not much difference between the two.

I never said that W is the "best man for the job." I will go on record as saying that we haven't had a "best man for the job" in the last 50-60 years - although I envision the "best man" as a combination of Truman, Reagan, JFK, and Theodore Roosevelt - without a career in politics behind him or aspirations to political power (as I've said so often, the ideal man for wielding political power is someone who does not want it..) I don't even think I'm the best man for the job - but that wouldn't stop me from taking a good solid swing at it if the opportunity presented itself. I haven't backed down from anything in years, and I see no reason to start now. I may fail at something, but it won't be for a lack of effort.

I haven't heard of a "good" Democrat in office since JFK - at least he understood what an Armed Force was for, and how it should be used (hint: it ain't the damned Peace Corps. We already have one of those. If you want infrastructure, call them. If you want to take over, call the Army.)

Ideally, the President should be a man who:
  • Does not have a "career in politics" behind him.
  • Does not actually want the job.
  • Can set aside the idea of "net worth" - at least while he's in office.
  • Does not want to retire from politics
  • Has some work as a stable journey-level or master-level tradesman. If prior military, he should have some time as an enlisted man, even if he topped out an officer (don't start me with comparisions to Hitler. The best way to learn to give orders is to take them for a while.)
  • Can set aside the "cause" of his own ego in deference to the greater good. And can admit when he's wrong, and learn from the mistake.
Interesting that you should bring up "cheating" in the election - as I recall, techs at Votermatic (makers of the ballot-punching machines) said that the only way they could duplicate the "swinging" or "hanging" chad was to punch several ballots at once - like four or five. Also, there was an election official who got busted driving around with ballot-punchers and cases of ballots in his POV when he wasn't supposed to have them. He happened to be a registered Democrat...

If you want to blame someone for the trade deficit we have with the Pacific Rim, take it to Congress. They're responsible for passing laws governing trade - and they can work to fix the trade imbalance issue, but they haven't. It's a fairly easy fix: all we need to do is trade on a quid pro quo basis (+/- 1-2% of net value) for a few years, and that should free up the capital to pay assorted creditors off.

Hey - you want something to get fixed? Have Congress run the national budget like a household budged, instead of all this "deficit spending" rot. The President isn't responsible for the budget - the House of Representatives is. It's in the Constitution, and that makes it simple logic (why does fiscal responsibility reside in the House? Because Representatives are assigned according to population, which gives a more "equitable" distribution than two Senators per state. At least, that's the theory - but the Founders were more publicly-minded than the current batch of arseholes we have in office.)

And, if the war is about oil, why haven't we gone after Venezuela? Chavez has been making a great deal of threatening noises down there, and he's just gotten himself elected "President-for-life," so doesn't that count as a threat to supply? Hmmm....

Great minds think alike :cheers:

One more thing...lets go ask Tim Berners-Lee what he thinks of Owl-Gorilla's Internet claim :D
 
JNickel101 said:
Great minds think alike :cheers:

One more thing...lets go ask Tim Berners-Lee what he thinks of Owl-Gorilla's Internet claim :D

It could also be said as "Small Minds Seldom Differ" (just to make the other side happy. I shan't go into results of the last comprehensive psych workup I had - I don't want to embarass anyone... :lecture:)

Tim Berners-Lee? I'll have to look him up, but I think he was involved in some of the early RFCs that codified the Internet, no? (Again, not "invented" per se - more like "formalised." Taking it from a semi-classified government project information-sharing tool to a publicly-available tool that didn't need a Cray to be accessed...)

I'm just strange. I like to form my own opinions. I like to have information when I try to form an opinion - if I don't have information, I don't have an opinion until I do. People look at me funny when I say, "I don't know enough to form an opinion" on something, but it's just the way I are. Probably too many classes in Logic and too many years on the debate team in school...
 
JNickel101 said:
You need to go take a forestry lesson. The natural life cycle of a forest includes forest fires. In fact, your state's precious Redwoods NEED fire in order for their seed pods to open up and germinate.

Loggers go in and clear out the old growth trees - dead and/or old trees that would burn faster. Dense forest = hotter, faster moving fire. Try it sometime man - build yourself two small fires - on one, throw a young, green log. On the other, throw a bunch of dried, dead logs. See which one gets roaring and hot first.

Your simplified election advertising campaign would work great for you and your fellow Democrats! I know you people need to keep it simple so you can understand. But...maybe if you really saw the big picture and what your candidates stood for, you might think twice about voting for them.

Keep voting for the tree huggers who dont want loggers to do their job. Then bitch and complain when you have more and more fires chasing you from your Hollywood mansions.

Clear cutting national forests is not the same a prunning them.

I don't have a hollywood mansion and I'm not a hippie and I don't vote. All the candidates are corrupt. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in politics.
 
sleeperjeeper said:
Clear cutting national forests is not the same a prunning them.

I don't have a hollywood mansion and I'm not a hippie and I don't vote. All the candidates are corrupt. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in politics.

Heh. Now there's something you and I can agree upon!

The ideal person to be in charge is someone who doesn't want the job. Actively campaigning for office should result in instant disqualification...
 
5-90 said:
And the Nobel has been becoming a political stalking horse of late as well. Slowly, and not very obvious, but everything is heading that way.

Ideally, the President should be a man who:
  • Does not have a "career in politics" behind him.
  • Does not actually want the job.
  • Can set aside the idea of "net worth" - at least while he's in office.
  • Does not want to retire from politics
  • Has some work as a stable journey-level or master-level tradesman. If prior military, he should have some time as an enlisted man, even if he topped out an officer (don't start me with comparisions to Hitler. The best way to learn to give orders is to take them for a while.)
  • Can set aside the "cause" of his own ego in deference to the greater good. And can admit when he's wrong, and learn from the mistake.
If you want to blame someone for the trade deficit we have with the Pacific Rim, take it to Congress. They're responsible for passing laws governing trade - and they can work to fix the trade imbalance issue, but they haven't. It's a fairly easy fix: all we need to do is trade on a quid pro quo basis (+/- 1-2% of net value) for a few years, and that should free up the capital to pay assorted creditors off.

Your ideas for a president are definitely idealistic, but we don't live in that world anymore. Power and Money is what its about now. As far as blaming congress for the deficit, I think it was Bush's administration that asked to 420 billion about every year so he could run his dad's war. All the while cutting funding for schools and veterans.

Gotta love his no child left behind policy. Meet these standards or we will cut your federal funding. Then we can use that money for war.
 
I thought this thread was about Iraq? What, nobody wants to take my posit on? J-Nickel, found any WMD's globe trotting with the AF lately? ;) 5-90, wanna take something retarded I've said in my life and harp on it? Ignore scientific fact lately? BTW, Gore doesn't have a "solution" for Global Warming. He simply advocates preparing for the climate changes that ARE coming and attempting to mitigate the damage where we can. Doesn't sound that unreasonable.

Anyway, since the Iraq war wasn't started over WMD's, Al Qaeda, or Saddam being an ass, or instilling true democracy in the Middle East, what was it about? Seriously, I would like to know. Was it oil? Was it corruption? Was it stupidity? Was it boredom? What?
 
Last edited:
buschwhaked said:
I thought this thread was about Iraq? What, nobody wants to take my posit on? J-Nickel, found any WMD's since in Air Force globe trotting lately? ;) 5-90, wanna take something retarded I've said in my life and harp on it? Ignore scientific fact lately? BTW, Gore doesn't have a "solution" for Global Warming. He simply advocates preparing for the climate changes that ARE coming and attempting to mitigate the damage where we can. Doesn't sound that unreasonable.

Anyway, since the Iraq war wasn't started over WMD's, Al Qaeda, or Saddam being an ass, or instilling true democracy in the Middle East, what was it about? Seriously, I would like to know. Was it oil? Was it corruption? Was it stupidity? Was it boredom? What?

I also would like to know the answer to that question. But who's going to answer it?

Seriously guys, if Bush is guilty of a tenth of the crap that the left has accused him of then why haven't we impeached the guy? We impeached Clinton for a hell of lot less. All he did was lie about getting a blowjob from an intern! If Bush's administration purposefully deceived the public and our government representatives about the justification for invading Iraq, then I think that it is a criminal act that should be prosecuted.

That and I can't stand people with IQ's below 60 as our president. :P
 
I guess that means we should invade and set a long term occupation of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan as well?
Well if you "guess that" then you have built a poor strawman, given that none of them have a history of attacking US interests, working with jihadists to do so, or using WMD against their neighbors. Perhaps you need to work on the question again before you spout wrong answers

no direct connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam
Pay attention to what people say--there are loads of direct connections between Saddam's Iraq and terrorist groups, including AQ affiliates. NOBODY of consequence has said that there is an absolute link between Saddam and Bin Laden in regards to attacks against US persons or interests. Yet he did in fact work with Abu Sayyaf in the Philipines to attack US interests (multiple times); he provided shelter to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and the ANO, and Carlos the Jackal; Ramzi Yousef (the '93 WTC bombing leader and an AQ operative) came from Iraq and ran back to Iraq afterwards; etc. Oh but since he did not actually have an extended cooperative tete-a-tete with Bin Laden Himself then he must not be a threat!

buschwhaked said:
About the UN: How hypocritical does it look for us to enforce "international law" without following it ourselves? We chose to enforce the resolution without going through the neccessary steps as required by "international law" to invade another nation-state. That argument doesn't hold water as well.
That argument doesn't hold water because it is nonsense. The US did not need explicit approval to act like you think. First of all, resolution 678 granted all member states the authority to use any force necessary to uphold the resolutions:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Obviously the US is "a member state" and obviously the cease-fire agreement in resolution 678 is a "subsequent relevant resolution" which the US (under both Clinton and Bush) felt needed to be enforced.

Second, Saddam's Iraq was provably in violation of the terms of the cease-fire, as demonstrated already, and as UNANIMOUSLY agreed to and stated as fact in resolution 1441:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

So if the US is pre-authorized to use "all necessary means" to "enforce [...] subsequent resolutions" which 1441 explicitly stated was the case, then what kind of additional authority do you fantasize was necessary? Show me a resolution that limited the authority please?

They only found a "few" 122mm rockets
So you agree they were in violation of the cease-fire, thanks
 
SBrad001 said:
I also would like to know the answer to that question. But who's going to answer it?

Seriously guys, if Bush is guilty of a tenth of the crap that the left has accused him of then why haven't we impeached the guy? We impeached Clinton for a hell of lot less. All he did was lie about getting a blowjob from an intern! If Bush's administration purposefully deceived the public and our government representatives about the justification for invading Iraq, then I think that it is a criminal act that should be prosecuted.

That and I can't stand people with IQ's below 60 as our president. :P

This may sound insensetive but impeaching Bush is the political equivalent of punching your mentally handicaped cousin in the glasses because he was annoying you. You really look like an a*hole afterwards.
 
buschwhaked said:
Anyway, since the Iraq war wasn't started over WMD's, Al Qaeda, or Saddam being an ass, or instilling true democracy in the Middle East, what was it about? Seriously, I would like to know. Was it oil? Was it corruption? Was it stupidity? Was it boredom? What?
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
 
buschwhaked said:
Anyway, since the Iraq war wasn't started over WMD's, Al Qaeda, or Saddam being an ass, or instilling true democracy in the Middle East, what was it about? Seriously, I would like to know. Was it oil? Was it corruption? Was it stupidity? Was it boredom? What?
He was just finishing what his dad started. Unfortunately it turned out a little harder and more costly than he thought it would be.
 
sleeperjeeper said:
He was just finishing what his dad started. Unfortunately it turned out a little harder and more costly than he thought it would be.

The problem with Storm I was that we didn't finish the job from the off. "The worst thing you can do to a mortal enemy is almost kill him."

We had assets in place, we had intel, we should have brought Saddam back then (or just his head, if that's all that could be managed.) SEAL Six and DELTA had assets in place, SEAL Two was ready as well. Given the "Go" order, we would have had Saddam's head (as a minimum) inside of sixty hours.

Why didn't we? Politics, I'm sure. Politicians don't have the sense to stand back out of the way during a war. We usually go to war because they screwed up, but they keep trying to run things...
 
5-90 said:
The problem with Storm I was that we didn't finish the job from the off. "The worst thing you can do to a mortal enemy is almost kill him."

We had assets in place, we had intel, we should have brought Saddam back then (or just his head, if that's all that could be managed.) SEAL Six and DELTA had assets in place, SEAL Two was ready as well. Given the "Go" order, we would have had Saddam's head (as a minimum) inside of sixty hours.

Why didn't we? Politics, I'm sure. Politicians don't have the sense to stand back out of the way during a war. We usually go to war because they screwed up, but they keep trying to run things...

you are probably right. we should have done it right the first time. But the mistake everyone over looks is thinking that the middle east wants to be "saved" and wants "democracy" and "peace", etc. They have been killing each other for millennia. I don't know why we stuck our nose into that hornets nest in the first place.
 
SBrad001 said:
Seriously guys, if Bush is guilty of a tenth of the crap that the left has accused him of then why haven't we impeached the guy? We impeached Clinton for a hell of lot less. All he did was lie about getting a blowjob from an intern! If Bush's administration purposefully deceived the public and our government representatives about the justification for invading Iraq, then I think that it is a criminal act that should be prosecuted.

If he was I believe the democrats would impeach him. Or maybe they are afraid what the citizens might learn from a trial, about them.

That and I can't stand people with IQ's below 60 as our president. :P

Below 60? That's pretty low and still he beat all his opponents. Wow his opponents must have been socialists.
 
Ironmen77 said:
Below 60? That's pretty low and still he beat all his opponents. Wow his opponents must have been socialists.

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't vote for Kerry or Gore, and why I'm voting for Ron Paul this time around. :P
 
SBrad001 said:
Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't vote for Kerry or Gore, and why I'm voting for Ron Paul this time around. :P

I think he would be a good choice.:cheers:
 
It is not that Mr. Bush isn't qualified to be the President. He simply doesn't pay attention. Not Interested. And he is/was surrounded by people whose motives for their actions are self-serving. You know--off the scale greedy. As far as George W, I personally think he is a good man. Unfortunately it takes being more than a good man (or woman) to be a good president. I mean can you imagine where we all would be if he had been president during the Cuban missle crisis???? God help us.:scared:
 
Back
Top