. BUSH IS A LOOSER

oh, just one note gene,,,,i hate to comment on spelling errors, esp when they are one time typos (which, lord knows, i make all the time)but it's spelled "loser" with 1 "o." the way you spell it always makes me want to ask, "looser than what?"

take care man,,,

just one question...does anyone else see that the way bush and his administration operate is more like tony robbin's "neuroassociative conditioning" than anything in the christian faith?

 

Bush came to office with NO Foreign policy or Military experience and the results SHOW in all aspects of both the Moslem World and in most another areas like the Americas, North Korea, and Cuba etc. BUSH IS A LOOSER!

What are you talking about?  Please explain how you are now blaming Cuba on Bush? 

 

This war was NOT justified because we were NOT in any danger from Saddam and Iraq in 2002.

But democrats told me Saddam was a threat, and that he had WMD's.  Were they lying col?

But democrats told me Saddam was a threat, and that he had WMD's.

23 democrats didn't say that in the senate. the democrats were divided in 2002. your statement is blatantly false and misleading.

the only party that was unanimous for the war were the republicans. the democrats were divided, the libertarians were against as were most other 3rd parties. the republicans were alone, unless ya want to include the neonazis who suported the war too.

What are you talking about? Please explain how you are now blaming Cuba on Bush?

i don't want to speak for the Col. but i think what he means is the opportunities we have had to get inclusive with cuba in recent years have been squandered by this administration in some folk's opinion.

i doubt he was talking about castro coming into power way back when.

as far as my opinion on that, i'll refrain as it is not germaine and a whole 'nother tangent...

what were we talkin bout? the Iraq War? or the alleged war on Christmas? which fraud was it? lol

 

23 democrats didn't say that in the senate. the democrats were divided in 2002. your statement is blatantly false and misleading.

No, it's not.  I can quote many democrats who declared Saddam was a threat, had WMD's, and should be removed. 

the only party that was unanimous for the war were the republicans. the democrats were divided, the libertarians were against as were most other 3rd parties. the republicans were alone, unless ya want to include the neonazis who suported the war too.

29 democrats voted to support the war and 21 didn't.  No matter what the divide, the democrats in general voted for the war. 

i doubt he was talking about castro coming into power way back when.

Well it wouldn't surprise me.  Col could find a way to blame the Civil War on Bush if you gave him enough time.

No, it's not. I can quote many democrats who declared Saddam was a threat, had WMD's, and should be removed.

1) there are many "threats" in the world.
2) many didn't believe he had WMD's in 2002. and whatever any individual believe 23 voted against the war.

29 democrats voted to support the war and 21 didn't. No matter what the divide, the democrats in general voted for the war.

it was 23...they were...
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)


and when almost 1/2 the senators voted against the war, there was no "general" voting one way by them. you are wrong there.

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

Sorry but you're wrong on at least this one.

miler...here's my source on the voting on hr 114, the joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq, sponsored by dennis hastert.WWW Link

it's the senate website, no spin, no bias.

and that was the best you could do? nitpick 1 voter? pUHLeaaaassse!!! run along now...

and when almost 1/2 the senators voted against the war, there was no "general" voting one way by them. you are wrong there.

Then by your own link you show this statement as a lie. There are 100 senators and of the 100, 77 of them voted "for" the war.

No, it's not. I can quote many democrats who declared Saddam was a threat, had WMD's, and should be removed. 1) there are many "threats" in the world. 2) many didn't believe he had WMD's in 2002. and whatever any individual believe 23 voted against the war.

Here's who said what, "when" it was said and from what party:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "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 | Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source "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 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

IslandDog

Numerous CIA Section chiefs said there was Intelligence that refuted the Bush/Cheney claim that Saddam had a nuclear program or a Bio program. They also said that Bush Cherry Picked the Intelligence and that he only used that which supported his position. Gen. Zinni also said the Intelligence prior to our invasion did not support what Bush and Cheney were claiming about the danger to the U.S. from Saddam.

Thus, what Bush did is ignore ANYTHING that did not agree with what he wanted to do and he was warned that there was a very real danger of destabilizing Iraq and getting bogged down in Iraq if we invaded. Today Saudi Arabia has made it clear, that will support the Sunnis if after we leave the majority Shiites attempt to eliminate the Sunnis. That is the nightmare that Bush was warned about- This would mean that the Iraq War could trigger a regional conflict. We already see Iran moving closer to the new Iraqi Government and that will not sit well with Saudi Arabia or Jordan.

Cheney was informed of the Saudi position two weeks ago according to the NYT. The true nature of the mistake Bush made by invading Iraq is coming to light even though people like Baker and Powell tried to warn Bush who would not listen. What we are seeing is the reason why Bush 41 did not invade Iraq.

Numerous CIA Section chiefs said there was Intelligence that refuted the Bush/Cheney claim that Saddam had a nuclear program or a Bio program. They also said that Bush Cherry Picked the Intelligence and that he only used that which supported his position. Gen. Zinni also said the Intelligence prior to our invasion did not support what Bush and Cheney were claiming about the danger to the U.S. from Saddam.

And how many of them were selling a book?  You cherry pick the people who support your claims, but ignore the ones who refute them that we constantly post to you.  I have already showed you how Zinni is associated with far left organizations, but you always seem to ignore that fact.

 

 

your point is moot,,,grandstand statements aren't what sends boys to war. congressional votes do. and again, 23 voted against. 7 of your quotes were from 1998, not 2002 and 8 were from people NOT in the senate. and if that's all ya got...lol

again, point being, 23 senators voted against the war.

your point is moot,,,grandstand statements aren't what sends boys to war. congressional votes do. and again, 23 voted against. 7 of your quotes were from 1998, not 2002 and 8 were from people NOT in the senate. and if that's all ya got...lol again, point being, 23 senators voted against the war.

Your "still" missing the my entire point, or you're deliberately ignoring it. Yes 23 voted against it. 23 out of "how" many? 23 out of a hundred isn't half of the senate. It's not even one quarter of it! It's not 1/2 of the democrats either!

and when almost 1/2 the senators voted against the war, there was no "general" voting one way by them. you are wrong there.