Oh ****!Cheney!

[coldfront]

:eek: July 20, 2007
Cheney to become president…briefly
WASHINGTON (CNN) – President Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy Saturday, and will transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney during the procedure, expected to take about two and a half hours, the chief White House spokesman said.

Tony Snow said Friday that the procedure, during which a doctor looks for any signs of cancer, will be carried out at Camp David, Maryland, and the president will be placed under anesthesia.

Bush’s last colonoscopy was in June 2002, and no abnormalities were found, Snow said.

[RoughRider]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOWAAAAAAAAHAAAAHA AAAHAAA!!

http://www.masterpiecepumpkins.com/Graphics/DrEvil%20_orig.JPG


:D :D :D :D

[coldfront]

Take care of my little skipper.

[frenchfireball]

Take care of my little skipper.


nice pic,lmao.

[SapphyreBlues]

Surely he couldn't do that much damage in 2 1/2 hours...could he? :eek:

[GFD748]

Surely he couldn't do that much damage in 2 1/2 hours...could he? :eek:

How many acres of a brush fire could burn in 2 1/2 hours?

[SapphyreBlues]

I'm not a FF, but my guess is a lot. A whole lot. Hmmm... I dunno why, but I've started hearing the theme music to Jaws. Anybody else hear it? :eek:

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I'm not a FF, but my guess is a lot. A whole lot. Hmmm... I dunno why, but I've started hearing the theme music to Jaws. Anybody else hear it? :eek:

If you are not a FF, then all you are right now is a troll. Go away.

[SapphyreBlues]

It has always been to my understanding that trolls go to sites only to start and keep arguments going. Or to annoy people in general. I've not done that, so I don't believe I'm being trollish.

[Halligan80]

If you are not a FF, then all you are right now is a troll. Go away.


^^^^^^^^WTF?^^^^^^^^^^

Mr. WendtCFI: please read.

http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=92368

[CodeBlueEMT]

TGIF. Try and play nice.

Shayne

[MarcusKspn]

*Game Show Theme Music Playing*

Welcome to another edition of "Who wants to control the world!"

Our Contestant today is Vice....I mean President Dick Cheney.

President Cheney, you have aprox 2 1/2 hours to try and crack the compination to the Presidential Football, otherwise known as the Nuclear Button that can Destroy the World. The clock will start when the first injection of sedadive starts, and it will stop when President Bush says his first non-sedadive induced sentence.

*Disclaimer flashes accross the screen: "The Judges will determine if any incoherend sentence spoken by President Bush is related to sedadives or if they are his normal English*

[SapphyreBlues]

You know, I thought something like that. Like how he's probably already eyeing the Big Red Button. I told my dad about this and he said something about Cheney getting a shotgun. And as long as we have him we really don't need the CIA.

[snowball]

Why doesn't he just man-up and go get his butt-pipe scoped at Walter Reed:rolleyes:

[SapphyreBlues]

Oh yeah. But then I'm sure they'd show the Pres a little more respect and care than they do the wounded troops/vets.

[HotTrotter]

You know, I thought something like that. Like how he's probably already eyeing the Big Red Button. I told my dad about this and he said something about Cheney getting a shotgun. And as long as we have him we really don't need the CIA.

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than go for a ride with Ted Kennedy. ;)

P.S. Ignore Norm, he is just whacked and miserable

[scfire86]

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than go for a ride with Ted Kennedy. ;)

I like Sen. Reid's comments when Cheney was criticizing Reid. "I'm not going to get into a debate with someone whose approval rating is less than 20%."

Snarls Cheney is one of the worst people brought on board by this administration. Fortunately, these little 2-3 hour stints is as close as he will get to the presidency.

Sapphire. Don't worry about George (aka Norm). He's disillusioned the president he championed for so long is finally being exposed as what will surely be one of the worst administrations in the history of our nation. I can only take solace in knowing the republic is stronger than the damage any one person do while in office.

[CaptainGonzo]

Personally, I think that the President wil make medical history...

They will discover that his colon is actually his brain.. which would explain the crappy decisons he's made while in office!

[ThNozzleman]

Fortunately, these little 2-3 hour stints is as close as he will get to the presidency.

I believe he has been able to do far more damage "behind the scenes" as VP than he ever would have been able to do as president.

[SapphyreBlues]

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than go for a ride with Ted Kennedy. ;)


Me too. At least his vic came home alive. I wasn't around when the other happened, but I've heard about it. Sad stuff.

I like Sen. Reid's comments when Cheney was criticizing Reid. "I'm not going to get into a debate with someone whose approval rating is less than 20%."


Is it really that low? Geez isn't that lower than the president's? Gotta love that comeback though.

Personally, I think that the President wil make medical history...

They will discover that his colon is actually his brain.. which would explain the crappy decisions he's made while in office!

Now that's just funny right there!

I believe he has been able to do far more damage "behind the scenes" as VP than he ever would have been able to do as president.

Evidently. Last I heard they were trying to make the White House hand over some official documents and they refuse to. I guess that's their way of pleading the 5th.


Ok, as for George, I'm not worried about it. I've been called very crude names right to my face, so being called a troll over the internet doesn't bother me at all.

Oh, and scfire86...I can't say much about George's political views because I voted for Bush too. My Personal Opinion: Bush is definitely not perfect, but at least he's not Kerry. And really you never know what will happen after you vote them in, or how they will handle it.

[scfire86]

Oh, and scfire86...I can't say much about George's political views because I voted for Bush too. My Personal Opinion: Bush is definitely not perfect, but at least he's not Kerry. And really you never know what will happen after you vote them in, or how they will handle it.

Sapphire. You're absolutely correct. I feel very secure in saying what I've stated before. Kerry could've gone into the Oval Office and slept for eight years and done less damage than Bush and Cheney.

[SapphyreBlues]

Times aren't getting any easier. But unfortunately none of the men running have gotten tough along with the day we're living in. None of them have any clue whatsoever how the working man lives. They have no idea what it's like to live from paycheck to paycheck. They don't know what it's like trying to raise a family with what little you do manage to keep after the Government Tax Vacuum sucks it outta you. We need someone like that. And it wouldn't matter of he was a Dem or Rep. We just desperately need someone who understands the masses, because he's one of them.

But, he won't ever get voted in because we'll never know he exists. Remember the last time Dan Quayle ran for president? He dropped out, and in an interview, he said something that made so much sense. He said that there needs to be a spending limit on presidential fund raisers. Because if there isn't, then it'll only be the rich that can be able to run, and only the richest of them will get the Office. And that's absolutely contrary to the constitution, because it's open to anyone who's an American citizen by birth, and who's 35+. It says nothing about money, but that's what it's come down to.

By the way...if you notice I've kept saying "man" or "men" because I absolutely WILL NOT vote for a woman to be president. Why? Because she'd be like some of the crazies that I know and would have us in war with Everybody. Think about it. I've seen it and i know some of you have. I have seen some very serious catfights break out over the smallest of incidents. Would you wanna give the Power of the Red Button to a woman like that? Um, no. :D But seriously, I just don't agree with it.

[scfire86]

He said that there needs to be a spending limit on presidential fund raisers. Because if there isn't, then it'll only be the rich that can be able to run, and only the richest of them will get the Office.
That's an interesting statement coming from Quayle. He is from a very wealthy family.

Despite all the pejoratives thrown at Bill Clinton, he came from a very modest background. Even if you have political differences with him, his background is middle class at best. He came from a single parent household that was dysfunctional at best. Hillary on the other hand is from a wealthy family in Illinois. Or at least what would be considered upper middle class.

I have more faith in the process as it relates to women candidates than you. The campaign for President is so grueling it weeds out the weak irrespective of gender.

[SapphyreBlues]

Quayle might just be wealthy, but he wasn't throwing down millions like the others. But of course a lot of their money came from contributors, and I don't believe Quayle was getting that many :rolleyes: If I'm not mistaken, he was running in the last race. Of course one race is as bad as the next so I tend to confuse them :D

I don't believe that women are weak. I just...well I have a more traditional view than most. Couple that with the fact that I'm somewhat against a lot of the feminist movement. Not that I believe that women are inferior. They're not. And if a woman does a man's job, she needs to be paid a man's wage for it. But what I don't like is how she wants to walk in a man's shoes, but then turn around and play the "weaker vessel" card when she doesn't get her way.

Well now that y'all think I've gone over the shallow end and hit my head, I'll just end this post --->right here<---

[scfire86]

I don't believe that women are weak. I just...well I have a more traditional view than most. Couple that with the fact that I'm somewhat against a lot of the feminist movement. Not that I believe that women are inferior. They're not. And if a woman does a man's job, she needs to be paid a man's wage for it. But what I don't like is how she wants to walk in a man's shoes, but then turn around and play the "weaker vessel" card when she doesn't get her way.
We'll just call you Sybil.

[SapphyreBlues]

Sybil? Huh?

[scfire86]

Sybill. (http://www.amazon.com/Sybil-Two-Disc-Special-Joanne-Woodward/dp/B000EHQU0S/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0350117-1342376?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1185126437&sr=8-1)

This is said in jest. Don't take it personally.

[SapphyreBlues]

I didn't take that personally. :) I am definitely used to getting "picked on". Happens all the time at home and church. Even more there since we got a new pastor. Perhaps now is where I should mention that he's been a Vol. FF for 15 years. Maybe that has something to do with it :rolleyes: (I have read the practical joke threads :eek: ) But yeah, you'd have to try harder than that to get me to take anything personally.

As for Sybill, I was thinking that's who you were talking about. Wasn't quite sure. My mom likes that movie. I think it's ... disturbed :eek: Not her - not that she could help it, of course, but her mom...whoa now that woman was a load o' something.

Going back to the original post, I believe they found 5 polyps in the president. I hope that everything is ok...

[scfire86]

Going back to the original post, I believe they found 5 polyps in the president. I hope that everything is ok...
I agree. As incompetent as Bush has shown himself to be, Snarls Cheney would be a disaster as President. Even if it only lasted a year and change.

[ThNozzleman]

My Personal Opinion: Bush is definitely not perfect, but at least he's not Kerry.
Hey, you're right! One is a chickenhawk who hid out in Texas during the Vietnam War. The other is a decorated combat veteran, not a coward who sends others to die in his place. Huge difference.

[ThNozzleman]

By the way...if you notice I've kept saying "man" or "men" because I absolutely WILL NOT vote for a woman to be president. Why? Because she'd be like some of the crazies that I know and would have us in war with Everybody. Think about it. I've seen it and i know some of you have. I have seen some very serious catfights break out over the smallest of incidents. Would you wanna give the Power of the Red Button to a woman like that? Um, no. But seriously, I just don't agree with it.
In case you haven't noticed, your man Bush has our people up to their necks in all the war they can handle. I would debate this point further, but I just noticed where you live. You should start thinking for yourself for a change...or read up on some famous women leaders in history. Hell, since you seem like a budding righty, start with Margaret Thatcher. Until then, get a dress on, get in the kitchen, and get supper started. The menfolk are hungry.

[SapphyreBlues]

In case you haven't noticed, your man Bush has our people up to their necks in all the war they can handle. I would debate this point further, but I just noticed where you live. You should start thinking for yourself for a change...or read up on some famous women leaders in history. Hell, since you seem like a budding righty, start with Margaret Thatcher. Until then, get a dress on, get in the kitchen, and get supper started. The menfolk are hungry.

Ok...how to respond to this :)

Bush. Yes I voted for him. I'm not too big of a wimp to deny that fact. Would I vote for him again? I might not vote for women to be pres, but I certainly won't vote for another man that has...well....less than normal wit.

I'm not saying women can't lead. I just have traditional views about some things is all. BUT having said that....I do suppose that in the times to come, if it absolutely came down to it that a woman was the only decent person running, and she had the country's interests at heart, then I *might* consider voting for her. I don't think I have to worry about that because there is no politician that worries about anybody but themselves.

As for the dress and cooking...now look here...I don't wear a dress unless it's to church. I hate them. And as for cooking for men - sure thing. But before I spend my day in the kitchen, he'd better be doing something other than loafing on the couch. I refuse to cook for a lazy man. Men that get out and work like dogs need to be fed good. Lazy men will waste away to nothing before I cook for 'em.

And yup, I was blessed enough to be born and raised in Tennessee :D

[ThNozzleman]

Saying that you would never vote for a woman, simply because she is a woman, is ridiculous...and it does a huge disservice to all women who have fought for equality and respect over the years. It has squat to do with "tradition".

[terry073]

Sapphire. You're absolutely correct. I feel very secure in saying what I've stated before. Kerry could've gone into the Oval Office and slept for eight years and done less damage than Bush and Cheney.

you're out of your mind if you actualy believe that.

how's this for a stat: no attacks since 9/11.

you think with kerry whimpin' it up in the oval office we could say that today?
doubt it.

bush isn't perfect, no president is. but ya ever see one of those scenes in a movie where a big group of people finaly come to a brave decision... and the time comes for the leader to step up and declare what they're goin' to do? all of a sudden, the leader turns around and everyone splits! well that's what the democrats in congress have done. they're willing to put the country at risk to gain political power. it's disgusting. all of these democrats voted for the war... they stood up ON RECORD and stated that saddam had to be dealt with. wmd's... etc. the entire free world was convinced that he had wmd's - it wasn't bush making it all up.

so get over yourself. bush has done far better than that backstabbing flipflopper could have ever done. is that what you wanted in office? a guy that comes home from vietnam and plunges a knife in the back of all those soldiers over there?

[terry073]

Saying that you would never vote for a woman, simply because she is a woman, is ridiculous...and it does a huge disservice to all women who have fought for equality and respect over the years. It has squat to do with "tradition".

i too would never vote for a woman. it aint right. it aint how God intended. IMHO.

[scfire86]

you're out of your mind if you actualy believe that.
Given the events of this administration and its disdain for our laws, I'd be a fool to believe otherwise. Dumping habeas corpus, illegal eavesdropping, outing a covert agent to name a few.

how's this for a stat: no attacks since 9/11.
And how is Bush responsible? If you believe the war in Afghanistan is the reason, I could easily say any President would have attacked after 9/11 irrespective of party affiliation. If you believe the war in Iraq is the reason, you would be one of the few, with nothing to support other than a soundbite like, "if we don't fight them there, they will follow us home." Comparing terrorists to lassie is quite a stretch, but Bush supporters do it regularly.

you think with kerry whimpin' it up in the oval office we could say that today?
doubt it.
Based on what? Please show us your crystal ball. At least we know action would have been thought out. Something that hasn't happened with the current occupant of the Oval Office.

so get over yourself. bush has done far better than that backstabbing flipflopper could have ever done. is that what you wanted in office? a guy that comes home from vietnam and plunges a knife in the back of all those soldiers over there?
Yet another urban legend. Kerry criticized the soldiers who were doing something wrong. I applaud him for that action.

[terry073]

Given the events of this administration and its disdain for our laws, I'd be a fool to believe otherwise. Dumping habeas corpus, illegal eavesdropping, outing a covert agent to name a few.
they haven't dumped habeas corpus - can you give me an example? and i don't want to hear about guantanamo <sp?> and POW's!!!!! there's a difference between you and i and a POW. don't blur that line. the eavesdropping is NOT illegal. it's actualy contributed to the lack of attacks since 9/11. the covert agent: i have no rebutal. truth is i don't know enough of the facts to debate it. but i'll do some research and get back to you.

And how is Bush responsible? If you believe the war in Afghanistan is the reason, I could easily say any President would have attacked after 9/11 irrespective of party affiliation. If you believe the war in Iraq is the reason, you would be one of the few, with nothing to support other than a soundbite like, "if we don't fight them there, they will follow us home." Comparing terrorists to lassie is quite a stretch, but Bush supporters do it regularly.

why is it so difficult for you to believe that fighting the enemy overseas is preferable to fighting them in our backyard? tell me: why did we declare war on Germany? they didn't attack us, did they? they were way over there in europe, weren't they? if you were alive back then, and you and your fellow socialists - err... democrats, made similar political attacks, you'd be arrested for treason! can you imagine in 1944, A SENATOR SCREAMING FROM HER POST THAT WE SHOULD SURRENDER AND RETREAT WHILE THE COUNTRY IS AT WAR??? she should be arrested and held WITHOUT HABEAS CORPUS because she's AIDING AND ABETTING! providing comfort and creating dissent from within. she's a criminal and she is no good for this country. and she's not the only one.

Based on what? Please show us your crystal ball. At least we know action would have been thought out. Something that hasn't happened with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
see where i said "doubt it"? that's not me stating for fact, but saying that based on what i know of kerry, I DOUBT IT.

Yet another urban legend. Kerry criticized the soldiers who were doing something wrong. I applaud him for that action.
you applaud him? YOU APPLAUD HIM??? see, i don't know you and i have nothing against you except your politics. maybe you're uninformed, misled... it's quite possible you're just ignorant to what kerry did. and i'll allow you a reprieve before i rip your statement to shreds. go read up on it. kerry and hanoi jane are of the same mold. do you applaud what fonda did as well? you may post publicaly that you don't... but deep down i bet you do. you probably think her actions during the war were justified and were covered by the 1st ammendment, huh? tell the truth!

try to understand this: iraq is gravely important for more reasons than you realize. it's not about oil. ok? speakin' of urban legends... it's about tactics! if you're fighting a fire, and you are able to position attack lines in several locations, do you want them streaming from the street or right on the fire? why do we want to sit back and let al qaeda and iran/syria plan their attacks? occupying and creating an ally in iraq gives us strategic advantage in the region.

understand that i know mistakes have been made. we are undertaking a monumental task that cannot be completed in months. it will take years. the war on terror is a generational conflict, not something that can be fixed in 30 minutes like a sitcom. that's the problem with people today: nothing is worth doing if it's difficult. al qaeda is IMMENSELY PATIENT and they will wait for years to achieve their goals. we must be equally vigillant. but it's the leftist thinking that will ultimately be our downfall.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

[ThNozzleman]

she should be arrested and held WITHOUT HABEAS CORPUS because she's AIDING AND ABETTING!
It is obvious that you have contributed to the deaths of millions, including thousands of U.S. soldiers based on your ignorance, stupidity, and apparant un-American activities. Therefore, you are guilty of treason and murder. I think you should be arrested, given no trial, and put before the firing squad at first light. Then, your entire family should be arrested, detained without trial, and tortured until they spill their guts about your anti-America behavior. :rolleyes:

Give the Michael Weener stuff a rest. You read like an old record that got stuck three years ago. America is sick to death of guys like you.

[ThNozzleman]

there's a difference between you and i and a POW.
Yeah...until they come calling for you.
Ignorance is a dangerous thing. You should work harder at correcting your situation.

[ThNozzleman]

try to understand this: iraq is gravely important for more reasons than you realize. it's not about oil. ok? speakin' of urban legends... it's about tactics! if you're fighting a fire, and you are able to position attack lines in several locations, do you want them streaming from the street or right on the fire? why do we want to sit back and let al qaeda and iran/syria plan their attacks? occupying and creating an ally in iraq gives us strategic advantage in the region.
Hey, genius...why didn't we invade those nations, then? NOTHING goes down in that part of the world that doesn't have oil and access and control of it at the heart of it. If there were not vast amounts of easily recoverable crude there, our government would care less. And just what "attacks" are Iran and Syria planning?? They gonna float their mighty navy right into Wilmington? Fly their awesome air force into Lexington? Launch their impressive nuclear force against America? What are you? Stupid?
Hey, are the Commies still coming to get us, too? :rolleyes:

[scfire86]

they haven't dumped habeas corpus - can you give me an example? and i don't want to hear about guantanamo <sp?> and POW's!!!!! there's a difference between you and i and a POW. don't blur that line. the eavesdropping is NOT illegal. it's actualy contributed to the lack of attacks since 9/11. the covert agent: i have no rebutal. truth is i don't know enough of the facts to debate it. but i'll do some research and get back to you.
AG Gonzales is on record as saying you have no right to Habeas Corpus. Scary concept coming from the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land. Eavesdropping isn't illegal. Doing it without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Ammendment. Something this administration desires to do despite the fact it has the ability to obtain a warrant retroactively. Despite all the chaff thrown out by Cheney's office, the Director of the CIA is on record as saying Plame was covert with a official and non-official cover status.

As far as Guantanamo. We invaded taking the moral high ground. Facilities and legal actions like those in Guantanamo diminish that stature.

why is it so difficult for you to believe that fighting the enemy overseas is preferable to fighting them in our backyard? tell me: why did we declare war on Germany? they didn't attack us, did they? they were way over there in europe, weren't they? if you were alive back then, and you and your fellow socialists - err... democrats, made similar political attacks, you'd be arrested for treason!
More crystal ball hypotheticals. Here's the difference. We were attacked by the Japanese who were allied with the Germans. We weren't attacked by the Iraqis. If you're going to use the WW II analogy then so do I. Had Bush been president when the Japanese attacked, he would have responded by attacking Brazil. You finish with more hypotheticals about what would have happened. What do you base that premise upon?

can you imagine in 1944, A SENATOR SCREAMING FROM HER POST THAT WE SHOULD SURRENDER AND RETREAT WHILE THE COUNTRY IS AT WAR??? she should be arrested and held WITHOUT HABEAS CORPUS because she's AIDING AND ABETTING! providing comfort and creating dissent from within. she's a criminal and she is no good for this country. and she's not the only one.
And it would have been wrong.

see where i said "doubt it"? that's not me stating for fact, but saying that based on what i know of kerry, I DOUBT IT.
Which is squat.

you applaud him? YOU APPLAUD HIM??? see, i don't know you and i have nothing against you except your politics. maybe you're uninformed, misled... it's quite possible you're just ignorant to what kerry did. and i'll allow you a reprieve before i rip your statement to shreds. go read up on it. kerry and hanoi jane are of the same mold. do you applaud what fonda did as well? you may post publicaly that you don't... but deep down i bet you do. you probably think her actions during the war were justified and were covered by the 1st ammendment, huh? tell the truth!
Are you saying the things Kerry discussed as wrongdoings by Americans never happened? You'd be one of the few that believes Americans didn't commit atrocities in Vietnam.

Yes, I believe Fonda's actions were covered by the 1st Ammendment. Damn constitution.

try to understand this: iraq is gravely important for more reasons than you realize. it's not about oil. ok? speakin' of urban legends... it's about tactics! if you're fighting a fire, and you are able to position attack lines in several locations, do you want them streaming from the street or right on the fire? why do we want to sit back and let al qaeda and iran/syria plan their attacks? occupying and creating an ally in iraq gives us strategic advantage in the region.
Your analogy is incomprehensible.

understand that i know mistakes have been made. we are undertaking a monumental task that cannot be completed in months. it will take years. the war on terror is a generational conflict, not something that can be fixed in 30 minutes like a sitcom. that's the problem with people today: nothing is worth doing if it's difficult. al qaeda is IMMENSELY PATIENT and they will wait for years to achieve their goals. we must be equally vigillant. but it's the leftist thinking that will ultimately be our downfall.
We've now been in Iraq longer than the aforementioned WW II. Give the soundbite a rest. It is the right who has gotten us engaged in this mess. Now that not one of their predictions (it'll be a walkover, won't cost a dime etc) didn't come true, their first tactic is to blame someone (liberals) else.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
Great quote. It doesn't apply to Americans who are now coming to the new found belief the reasons for engaging in this conflict have been less than straightforward.

[terry073]

Hey, genius...why didn't we invade those nations, then? NOTHING goes down in that part of the world that doesn't have oil and access and control of it at the heart of it. If there were not vast amounts of easily recoverable crude there, our government would care less. And just what "attacks" are Iran and Syria planning?? They gonna float their mighty navy right into Wilmington? Fly their awesome air force into Lexington? Launch their impressive nuclear force against America? What are you? Stupid?
Hey, are the Commies still coming to get us, too? :rolleyes:

we have plenty of oil right here in the states... but the treehuggers won't allow us to drill it. but to humor you... so what if oil is one of the reasons we're there? do ya have any idea what would happen to our country if our oil supply was cut off? do ya? if the region completely destabilizes, and iran and syria and the rest of the anti-american/anti-israel nations are able to disrupt our supply... lets just say that you can forget your weekly bowlin' league... and all those things you enjoy doing - gone. how can i make that any clearer? until we do something about our energy situation, we need that freakin' oil. can't do without it. sucks but it's reality.

what if bush came out and said (pre-war), "ok... iraq may or may not be attempting to procure a WMD. our intel indicates they are. on the other hand, our oil supply from the region is subsequently threatened and we can no longer afford to let the region slip further into chaos. our best avenue of approach is to declare war on iraq, search out WMD's, effect regieme change and secure our position in the region." what would you say to that?

re: iran and syria --> are you for real? what attacks are they planning?? do you really think that the nature of this war deals with a large army and navy coming across the ocean to attack our seashore? if so, you're blind.

do you remember 9-11? do you remember the first attack in '93? what do you think those incidents were, a fluke? will you change your tune when a nuke goes off in downtown manhattan?

sometimes i feel like i'm in the twillight zone. it's amazing that there are people like you thinking the way you think. i suppose on 9-12-01 you felt the same way? what about leading up to the war, were you on board? or were you this vocal? hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it nozzleman? i bet on 9-12 you were ready to ship out and slay some extremists... but today, the democrats feel they can gain political power and thus are "against the war". pathetic.

the reason we didn't invade THOSE NATIONS is because iraq/saddam had already defied numerous orders to open up to weapons inspectors. they'd been firing on our military for years. it was the thinking at the time that they were pursuing wmd's. and not just our thinking mind you, but that of the entire free world. who was against us going in? the people doin' dirty deals behind the scenes. these nations are evil. dont' doubt it.

so what do you propose we do nozzleman? pull out of iraq. allow al qaeda to win. give them a huge confidence boost? tuck our tails and come on home. sit back and wait for another attack? is that what you want?
your mentality is exactly what they're hoping for, don't you get it? this isn't 1950. ok? we aren't sitting back waiting for the soviets to push a button. the muslim extremist want you dead nozzleman. and you're just willing to stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't true. sad.

It is obvious that you have contributed to the deaths of millions, including thousands of U.S. soldiers based on your ignorance, stupidity, and apparant un-American activities. Therefore, you are guilty of treason and murder. I think you should be arrested, given no trial, and put before the firing squad at first light. Then, your entire family should be arrested, detained without trial, and tortured until they spill their guts about your anti-America behavior. Give the Michael Weener stuff a rest. You read like an old record that got stuck three years ago. America is sick to death of guys like you.
how have i contributed to the deaths of millions, including thousands of americans? what are you getting at here nozzleman? what are you saying? you know nothing about me. you have no idea of what i've done, where i've been and what i've sacraficed. so watch what you say. it's one thing to disagree with my politics, but don't ever say what you just did again.

hillary, OTOH, IS ON RECORD calling for us to in essence SURRENDER. we are at war. we have troops in battle AS WE SPEAK. what do you think her words do to the enemy? it gives them HOPE. hope, nozzleman... do you get that? it makes them think they're winning... it spurs them on to fight harder. i don't care if you're against the war. the fact is we are there. now what? what will it do to iraq if we were to leave now? read up on your history and see what happened when we left vietnam.

you can't give the enemy hope. you can't say things that help them. this is treason!

you speak like a young 20 somethin' fresh out of a liberal college. yet you're my age with some experience under your belt. i just find it amazing that you think the best course of action is to pull out of iraq and let the middle east implode. am i reading you right?

have you served? military? just wondering... i have, to save you from asking. joined about 2 weeks after the first WTC attack. i was actualy in NY when the first one happened. we were planning to visit the trade center when reports came across that there was a fire. i remember channel 2 was doing most of the reporting - it came off empire state if i remember correctly. later, i was on board an aircraft carrier (USS Carl Vinson) doing ops in the pacific when OK city bomb went off. i have always been patriotic nozzleman... and when i hear politicians say things that hurt the troops, it infuriates me. this is what i feel some democrats in congress are doing.

so i'm not regurgitating michael savage, ok bro. this is what i believe. i think for myself. do you? or are you just spewing out what you've heard?

[terry073]

hang on scfire86... i'll get to you in a few minutes. let me see what you've got to say. brb.

edited to add: i stopped reading when when you supported fonda. you can not be reasoned with. end of my conversation with you dude. too bad too, i wanted to continue the debate.

[scfire86]

we have plenty of oil right here in the states... but the treehuggers won't allow us to drill it.
Could you please point me to an example where oil companies weren't allowed to drill? The only recent instance I can find was off the coast of Florida. At the time the state was being governed by that well known tree hugger Jeb Bush.

[scfire86]

hang on scfire86... i'll get to you in a few minutes. let me see what you've got to say. brb.

edited to add: i stopped reading when when you supported fonda. you can not be reasoned with. end of my conversation with you dude. too bad too, i wanted to continue the debate.
I can understand your frustration. As Reagan used to say, "facts are stupid things."

[scfire86]

hillary, OTOH, IS ON RECORD calling for us to in essence SURRENDER. we are at war. we have troops in battle AS WE SPEAK. what do you think her words do to the enemy? it gives them HOPE. hope, nozzleman... do you get that? it makes them think they're winning... it spurs them on to fight harder. i don't care if you're against the war. the fact is we are there. now what? what will it do to iraq if we were to leave now? read up on your history and see what happened when we left vietnam.

Hillary's words have the same effect that Sen Phil Gramm (R-TX) had when he got up on the floor of the US Senate and declared that President Clinton's cruise missile attack of Bin Laden's Hq was the pursuit of something "unimportant."

You bring up Vietnam as an analogy. I'll bite. We suffered almost 60K dead and three to four times the number wounded. We expended billions of dollars and left behind one of the best equipped military forces in the world supporting a functioning democracy. What else were we supposed to do that would have changed the outcome? How much of a sacrifice are Americans supposed to bear for others? And now thirty years later, Vietnam is emerging as a significant trading partner of the US. One might argue things turned out okay.

[HotTrotter]

Sapphire. You're absolutely correct. I feel very secure in saying what I've stated before. Kerry could've gone into the Oval Office and slept for eight years and done less damage than Bush and Cheney.

I think Kerry would have been a good president opinion wise. Heck, if you don't like the way he is leading the country, wait a week and it will change.

You are probably right about one thing though, Kerry would have slept (Clinton Like) and done nothing.

Good news is, the Bush economic policies are kicking in and the economy is doing better than ever.

[HotTrotter]

Could you please point me to an example where oil companies weren't allowed to drill? The only recent instance I can find was off the coast of Florida. At the time the state was being governed by that well known tree hugger Jeb Bush.

A convenient truth here. Alaska. ;) And someday, we will drill there, eventually that will be the only oil left.

[scfire86]

A convenient truth here. Alaska. ;) And someday, we will drill there, eventually that will be the only oil left.

Do you ever get tired of recycling the same arguments which failed you in the past?

Former Interior Sec'y Norton tried for years to get the oil companies interested in ANWR. They showed tepid interest, if any at all. The push is due to Alaska's senior Senator, Ted Stevens, who knows Alaska's share of revenues from the North Slope developments is dwindling as less and less oil is extracted there. Stevens knows Alaska needs a new project to bring more oil money to the state. Yes, the man who brought you the Bridge to Nowhere in the last Senate session knows what is best for this nation.

The oil companies have balked at the estimates of oil in ANWAR. In addition they wanted the feds to indemnify them against any damage claims as a result of extraction. In essence wanting the taxpayer (aka you) to pick up the tab.

I know a lot of folks like yourself want to believe that ANWAR is our panacea to oil imports. So you won't mind if a few facts (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/) get in the way.

[SamuelFire]

Good news is, the Bush economic policies are kicking in and the economy is doing better than ever.

Didn't you say something in one of your 1193 or so ramblings (posts) that the economy is a reaction to the policies of a past president? So if the economy is kicking in, it must be because of that dreaded liberal Clinton.

[scfire86]

Good news is, the Bush economic policies are kicking in and the economy is doing better than ever.
Easy to do when you're borrowing trillions of dollars and leaving someone else to pick up the tab.

[scfire86]

To wrap a bow around this thread.

I can't imagine Gore taunting al Qaeda with "bring it on!", and then being outraged when they took him up on his schoolyard dare.

Or going through some elaborate photo-op stunt like "flying" onto the aircraft carrier and standing before the "Mission Accomplished" banner, even though, 3 years later, no demonstrable mission has been accomplished--Americans are still dying by the score, the Iraqi goverment is as incompetent and fractious as ever, incapable of taking over.

Or telling the world that there was no place Osama bin Laden could run or hide...then telling the world nine months later that we had no idea where Osama was and that he [Bush] didn't care where he was.

Among all current politicians of national standing, Gore is the only one who opposed the Iraqi misadventure from the outset. The others were for it before they were against it.

I think if the American people had the ability to will a collective do-over, Gore would win both popular and electoral college easily, if only because many Bush voters from 2000 would sit this one out, knowing what they know now.

[HotTrotter]

Do you ever get tired of recycling the same arguments which failed you in the past?

Former Interior Sec'y Norton tried for years to get the oil companies interested in ANWR. They showed tepid interest, if any at all. The push is due to Alaska's senior Senator, Ted Stevens, who knows Alaska's share of revenues from the North Slope developments is dwindling as less and less oil is extracted there. Stevens knows Alaska needs a new project to bring more oil money to the state. Yes, the man who brought you the Bridge to Nowhere in the last Senate session knows what is best for this nation.

The oil companies have balked at the estimates of oil in ANWAR. In addition they wanted the feds to indemnify them against any damage claims as a result of extraction. In essence wanting the taxpayer (aka you) to pick up the tab.

I know a lot of folks like yourself want to believe that ANWAR is our panacea to oil imports. So you won't mind if a few facts (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/) get in the way.

All I know is the democrats blocked opening up the ANWAR to oil exploration activities.

[HotTrotter]

Didn't you say something in one of your 1193 or so ramblings (posts) that the economy is a reaction to the policies of a past president? So if the economy is kicking in, it must be because of that dreaded liberal Clinton.

Slightly twisted. What I said was that it often takes 5 to 10 years for economic policies to have an effect.

[scfire86]

All I know is the democrats blocked opening up the ANWAR to oil exploration activities.
Could you explain how they did at a time when they were in the minority of both houses of congress?

[scfire86]

Slightly twisted. What I said was that it often takes 5 to 10 years for economic policies to have an effect.
You are probably correct. Bush inherited a sluggish economy in 2001. Minus ten years that would make the causal factors of the economy from 1991 when his dad was president. Now you state the economy is running well on policies put in place during 1997 when Clinton was president.

Look at the bright side. We finally agree on something.

[HotTrotter]

You are probably correct. Bush inherited a sluggish economy in 2001. Minus ten years that would make the causal factors of the economy from 1991 when his dad was president. Now you state the economy is running well on policies put in place during 1997 when Clinton was president.

Look at the bright side. We finally agree on something.

You funny Joe, but instead of using 10, use 5, now what happens. ;)

Of course, the truth be known, the President doesn't do jack to the economy. The chairman of the federal reserve is the only one who really does much of anything. The free enterprise system runs pretty much without regards to the governement.

[emt161]

I like Sen. Reid's comments when Cheney was criticizing Reid. "I'm not going to get into a debate with someone whose approval rating is less than 20%."

Considering that Cheney is running about 30% while Congress is in the 20's, I'm not sure where Reid is going with this.

http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

[scfire86]

You funny Joe, but instead of using 10, use 5, now what happens. ;)

Why should I? You're the one that originally said ten. Your ADD is showing. You cherry pick numbers to come to your conclusion. Earlier you said:

Good news is, the Bush economic policies are kicking in and the economy is doing better than ever.

Now you're saying:

Of course, the truth be known, the President doesn't do jack to the economy.

Which is it? Aside from ADD, you display traits of dementia.

[scfire86]

Considering that Cheney is running about 30% while Congress is in the 20's, I'm not sure where Reid is going with this.

The operative word there is Congress.

The poll didn't discriminate between dem or rep. It encompassed both groups.

[SamuelFire]

All I know is the democrats blocked opening up the ANWAR to oil exploration activities.

Glad you admit you know only one thing (even though you are wrong) and confirmed that all your past were ramblings with that one post.

[terry073]

I can understand your frustration. As Reagan used to say, "facts are stupid things."

so now you're quotin' the gipper, huh? lol

scfire86... humor me here bro. i want to know what you think about something.

if al qaeda is operating in iraq (this is commonly thought to be the case)...

and al qaeda is the primary entity in the war on terror...

and given that al qeada has already attacked us on numerous occasions (before the war, mind you)...

what do you think the result would be if we withdrew our troops from iraq?
all of our troops come home.

and in your response, i'd like to know if you think al qeada will then cease all terror attacks on the US or if they will increase.

thanks!

- terry

[scfire86]

so now you're quotin' the gipper, huh? lol

scfire86... humor me here bro. i want to know what you think about something.

if al qaeda is operating in iraq (this is commonly thought to be the case)...

and al qaeda is the primary entity in the war on terror...

and given that al qeada has already attacked us on numerous occasions (before the war, mind you)...

what do you think the result would be if we withdrew our troops from iraq?
all of our troops come home.

and in your response, i'd like to know if you think al qeada will then cease all terror attacks on the US or if they will increase.

thanks!

- terry
Like General Powell used to do at his press conferences as both JCS and SecState. I don't deal in hypotheticals.

[emt161]

The operative word there is Congress.

The poll didn't discriminate between dem or rep. It encompassed both groups.

Indeed. Why don't you tell us which party has the majority in both houses.

[awaits spin]

[scfire86]

Indeed. Why don't you tell us which party has the majority in both houses.

[awaits spin]
This is rhetorical, right? What's your point? I've read that one of the reasons why people are unhappy with congress is they expected the new majority to get out of Iraq ASAP. The only reason that hasn't happened has been due to procedural moves by the minority requiring a 60 votes in the Senate and presidential veto.

Both parties have their fingerprints on this knife.

[ThNozzleman]

Both parties have their fingerprints on this knife.
Yeah...but we all know whose knife it is and that they are still stabbin' away. :rolleyes:

[terry073]

Like General Powell used to do at his press conferences as both JCS and SecState. I don't deal in hypotheticals.

well you aren't general powell... and this isn't a press confrence bro.

if you're unable to unwilling to use hypothetical situations in order to play out possible results to decisions that need to be made, how can you have a position one way or the other?

ya can't just say "pull the plug on iraq!" with no clue as to what MIGHT happen.

man, everything we do is based on hypotheticals. we live in the hypothetical realm. everything happens in the future! and everything you do - from the automatic "autopilot" functions to well thought out plans - deals with hypotheticals.

so i guess what i'm sayin' is that if you can't imagine what the end result might be, you can't say we should pull out of iraq.

personaly, i believe that if we pull out of iraq there will be thousands and thousands killed in the subsequent civil war... al qeada will more or less take over and the prestige they garner from defeating the great satan would be catastrophic! it's just too important.

since when are we a nation of quitters? we're letting a bunch of soccer mom's with their emotions running wild dictate foriegn policy!!!! you get a mother who loses her son (understandably a horrible thing). but you can't let her become the voice of surrender and failure! everyone of those men and women SIGNED UP VOLUNTARILY!!!! they weren't drafted.

* when you get paid to learn how to kill people, and to go and kill people in war... and possibly get killed yourself, then that's what happens!!!

it's THE FREAKIN' MILITARY, NOT AMERICA'S NEXT TOP MODEL!!

GOOD GRIEF!!!!

i've never backed down from a fight... but i've seen a lot of guys wuss out and run away. i've seen WEAK people make poor decisions because they can't stomach what needs to be done.

losing is not an option. the united states can not loose. the people calling for withdrawal are the same people that raise a white flag and turn themselves over to the enemy. we should be a country of fighters that never backs down! i don't care what the odds are. you don't get captured alive. and you better not have any ammo left... or else you're cuttin' and slashing till they take you out.

it just drives me crazy hearing people calling for our surrender. they should pack a bag and hit the road if you ask me. what would happen in 1943 had this mentality been so prevalent???? europe would be speakin' german and ywe wouldn't be the wolrds only superpower.

so i ask you again scfire.... give me your best guess.

[HotTrotter]

This is rhetorical, right? What's your point? I've read that one of the reasons why people are unhappy with congress is they expected the new majority to get out of Iraq ASAP. The only reason that hasn't happened has been due to procedural moves by the minority requiring a 60 votes in the Senate and presidential veto.

Both parties have their fingerprints on this knife.

Actually, the Generals in Iraq are saying it is a bad idea to get out as well. And Generals know better than politicians in matters of war.

[scfire86]

well you aren't general powell... and this isn't a press confrence bro.
No I'm not. I'm just smart enough to avoid answering questions using a crystal ball.


ya can't just say "pull the plug on iraq!" with no clue as to what MIGHT happen.
I really don't care at this point in time. We have put enough blood and treasure into this quagmire. If the newly formed Iraqi parliament can take an entire month off , why should Americans risk their lives for a group who are in no hurry to form a society that can support itself?

so i guess what i'm sayin' is that if you can't imagine what the end result might be, you can't say we should pull out of iraq.
I just did. And I explained why.

personaly, i believe that if we pull out of iraq there will be thousands and thousands killed in the subsequent civil war... al qeada will more or less take over and the prestige they garner from defeating the great satan would be catastrophic! it's just too important.
That's your opinion. It could turn out just the opposite where a secular government takes control. I don't know what will happen and neither do you.

since when are we a nation of quitters? we're letting a bunch of soccer mom's with their emotions running wild dictate foriegn policy!!!! you get a mother who loses her son (understandably a horrible thing). but you can't let her become the voice of surrender and failure! everyone of those men and women SIGNED UP VOLUNTARILY!!!! they weren't drafted.
What are you talking about?

* when you get paid to learn how to kill people, and to go and kill people in war... and possibly get killed yourself, then that's what happens!!!

it's THE FREAKIN' MILITARY, NOT AMERICA'S NEXT TOP MODEL!!

GOOD GRIEF!!!!
What's your point?

i've never backed down from a fight... but i've seen a lot of guys wuss out and run away. i've seen WEAK people make poor decisions because they can't stomach what needs to be done.
Again, what's your point?

losing is not an option. the united states can not loose. the people calling for withdrawal are the same people that raise a white flag and turn themselves over to the enemy. we should be a country of fighters that never backs down! i don't care what the odds are. you don't get captured alive. and you better not have any ammo left... or else you're cuttin' and slashing till they take you out.
I guess that should mean something to me. It doesn't.

it just drives me crazy hearing people calling for our surrender. they should pack a bag and hit the road if you ask me. what would happen in 1943 had this mentality been so prevalent???? europe would be speakin' german and ywe wouldn't be the wolrds only superpower.
Aaah the WW II analogy. At least the leadership in that conflict had the sense to invade the right country. If the current leadership had been in charge in WW II they would have invaded Brazil after Doolittle's raid.

so i ask you again scfire.... give me your best guess.
That this too shall pass.

[scfire86]

Actually, the Generals in Iraq are saying it is a bad idea to get out as well. And Generals know better than politicians in matters of war.
Hey genius. You might want to reread the Constitution. The military answers to civilian authority.

[HotTrotter]

Hey genius. You might want to reread the Constitution. The military answers to civilian authority.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

The military reports to the Commander in chief, who is the president, who technically is a civilian. The congress needs to stay out of matters involving military tactics and maneuvers.

[scfire86]

The military reports to the Commander in chief, who is the president, who technically is a civilian. The congress needs to stay out of matters involving military tactics and maneuvers.
That's all very nice. Except the people elected individuals to congress to get the US out of Iraq.

Our idiot in chief somehow believes he knows more than almost 70% of the American people who are wanting our involvement to end sooner instead of his later.

[HotTrotter]

That's all very nice. Except the people elected individuals to congress to get the US out of Iraq.

Our idiot in chief somehow believes he knows more than almost 70% of the American people who are wanting our involvement to end sooner instead of his later.

Congress can't do that, it is up to the Commander and Chief. And rest assured, the next president won't get us ot of Iraq for at least 2 or 3 years, probably longer.

Actually, those 70% of the people don't have access to the intelligence reports. And in the immortal words of a New York State Trooper "The general public is stupid." This words were uttered at a fatal car accidnet where dad was bring his young toddlers down to see the body. :rolleyes:

[scfire86]

Actually, those 70% of the people don't have access to the intelligence reports. And in the immortal words of a New York State Trooper "The general public is stupid." This words were uttered at a fatal car accidnet where dad was bring his young toddlers down to see the body. :rolleyes:
They don't have to have access to intelligence reports.

And I like your elitist attitude. Something we libs are accused of doing by folks like you.

[HotTrotter]

They don't have to have access to intelligence reports.

And I like your elitist attitude. Something we libs are accused of doing by folks like you.

Yea, you are right, why base your decsion on intelligence?

It's not an elitist attitude, it's realistic.

[scfire86]

Yea, you are right, why base your decsion on intelligence?
You should be asking the president that question.

It's not an elitist attitude, it's realistic.
As if you've proven you know anything.

[terry073]

ok scfire... a simpler question.


iraq is a hotbed of al qeada and hence is a major front in the war on terror.

do you agree or disagree? please explain your position either way.

thanks.

[scfire86]

ok scfire... a simpler question.


iraq is a hotbed of al qeada and hence is a major front in the war on terror.

do you agree or disagree? please explain your position either way.

thanks.
I have an ever simpler question. What is the point?

[terry073]

dude, is that all you can come up with? "what is the point?"

the point is - now listen closely... the point is that regardless of what you want to believe, there are people in this world that want to kill us. they use women and children to blow up innocent civilians. they fly airplanes into our buildings. they drive speedboats into our warships and they bomb our embassy's. they want to kill as many americans and jews as they can and they are far more dedicated than you and the liberals in congress who are trying to force us to surrender.

what is the point in saving the lives of 1,000 more soldiers and marines if the result is 500,000 dead in NYC? what do you hope to accomplish by surrendering? both scenario's are horrible, but the lesser of two evils has to prevail.

in case you forgot:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

let me guess... you're gonna ask me what my point is again, right?

look, you know i'm making sense here. you know it's nagging you. don't fight it scfire! surrender: bad fight till we win: good!!!!

:)

[terry073]

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

even the 'burglar' and mr. excitement thought the same thing.

what say you?

[scfire86]

the point is - now listen closely... the point is that regardless of what you want to believe, there are people in this world that want to kill us. they use women and children to blow up innocent civilians. they fly airplanes into our buildings. they drive speedboats into our warships and they bomb our embassy's. they want to kill as many americans and jews as they can and they are far more dedicated than you and the liberals in congress who are trying to force us to surrender.

what is the point in saving the lives of 1,000 more soldiers and marines if the result is 500,000 dead in NYC? what do you hope to accomplish by surrendering? both scenario's are horrible, but the lesser of two evils has to prevail.

in case you forgot:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

let me guess... you're gonna ask me what my point is again, right?

look, you know i'm making sense here. you know it's nagging you. don't fight it scfire! surrender: bad fight till we win: good!!!!

:)
Yawn. I've read all the right wing wackjob talking points. I like how you finish off with a quote from John Kerry.

Knowing what we know now on how the intel that was presented to congress was cooked to have a predetermined outcome I doubt you'd find many takers to support the claim that originally got us involved in Iraq.

But since you finish off with such a rousing statement. Could you define what constitutes winning? Even the administration has changed the goal and declared victory at least four times since they started this fiasco.

[HotTrotter]

I have an ever simpler question. What is the point?

9-11-2001 Perhaps you should do a Google search and find out about that day in history. For more check out this list of terror attacks (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm) on the US :rolleyes: Unbelievable!!!

[HotTrotter]

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

even the 'burglar' and mr. excitement thought the same thing.

what say you?

Now you did it. You gave him facts and real history, as opposed to the liberal revisionist history. The poor lad won't know how to act for days.

[scfire86]

9-11-2001 Perhaps you should do a Google search and find out about that day in history. For more check out this list of terror attacks (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm) on the US :rolleyes: Unbelievable!!!
Again what's your point? The latest NIE details how Bush's actions has made us more prone to terrorist attacks. If that is true, so much for us being safer.

[HotTrotter]

Again what's your point? The latest NIE details how Bush's actions has made us more prone to terrorist attacks. If that is true, so much for us being safer.

I guess my point is we should just set back and let these terrorists punch us over and over and over. And every time they hit us we shoudl thank thme and ask for another. :rolleyes:

[scfire86]

I guess my point is we should just set back and let these terrorists punch us over and over and over. And every time they hit us we shoudl thank thme and ask for another. :rolleyes:

Apparently the Iraqis for whom we are fighting and dying for don't seem to be too concerned. Tell me again why Americans should be when they aren't.

Iraqi lawmakers take their time (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-missing27jul27,0,4508518.story ?coll=la-home-center)

[SamuelFire]

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

even the 'burglar' and mr. excitement thought the same thing.

what say you?

Now, why don't you quote Cheney and his puppet Bush, Colin Powell and the host of other REPUBLICANS that said that Saddam does not have WMD's or even the capabilities to produce them. It is because they show the deceit that has been going on from the WH or is your head buried in the sand?

Those statements were made early 2001.