All it does is make you look like a foolish idiot and you and Clinton are the ones trying to protect the terrorists

You are the one that said we can not control our borders. That is BS. Bush is NOT enforcing the laws and is more interested in attacking Iraq then protecting our country! When people like you support what Bush is doing both of you are the fools!

everytime bush tries to enforce those laws the demos jump on him for being racist

we have at least one border patrol officer in prison for defending himself

Every time bush tries to enforce those laws the demos jump on him for being racist . Bush could care less when names the Democrats call him!!!!!!!!
We have at least one border patrol officer in prison for defending himself

Bush has NOT attempted to control the border and he did not request the added guards that HE said are needed. WHY? With the GOP control of Congress he could have added the needed guards and would have had BOTH Republican and Democrat votes. The conviction of the two Border agents was by HIS Justice Dept. These has been an appeal to Bush who has not acted, The fact that 6 years after 9/11 we have NOT secured our borders and are not inspecting the VAST majority of the containers coming through our ports is because of the INACTION of Bush and HIS administration NOT the Democrats.

Bush and Cheney are GOOD at sending other people’s children into harms way for no justified reason but they did not risk their lives when it was their time to serve

No worse than Clinton. And please try to think "before" you answer. Your usual response would be "but he never set our troops in harms way for no reason". That would be pure BS and you and I both know it. Or have you already forgotten "Black Hawk down"? Which was based on true events during 1993! Because Somalia was definitely no threat to the US.

Bush declassifies intelligence saying bin Laden ordered attacks outside Iraq
By DEB RIECHMANN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
May 23, 2007 7:58 AM EDT
WASHINGTON - Seeking to rally support for the war, President Bush released intelligence asserting that Osama bin Laden in 2005 ordered a top lieutenant to form a terrorist unit to hit targets outside Iraq, including the United States.


This story PROVES just how out of touch Bush is about Iraq. WHO ordered al Qaeda to conduct attacks in the U.S.? Answer bin Laden. When did this take place? 2005. HOW the HELL does this show the United States was in danger in 2002 from Saddam? Answer IT DOES NOT. In fact it shows, as did all the intelligence BEFORE and SINCE the invasion, that the danger to the United States was from al Qaeda NOT IRAQ. WHY is al Qaeda able to operate in Iraq? Answer because of our invasion and the fact we did not sent enough troops to prevent foreign terrorists from setting up operations in Iraq just like the ones in Afghanistan where 9/11 WAS PLANNED! Bush is too stupid to see that the Intel he declassified and released shows the fallacy of his policy. We all know that al Qaeda wants and has attacked the United States and U.S. facilities in other parts of the world. It DOES NOT support that Saddam and Iraq was a danger to the United States in 2002-2003!

Reply By: drmiler Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Bush and Cheney are GOOD at sending other people’s children into harms way for no justified reason but they did not risk their lives when it was their time to serve


No worse than Clinton. And please try to think "before" you answer. Your usual response would be "but he never set our troops in harms way for no reason". That would be pure BS and you and I both know it. Or have you already forgotten "Black Hawk down"? Which was based on true events during 1993! Because Somalia was definitely no threat to the US.


Lets compare-- Clinton was acting as part of UN supported action and Bush was not. The UN did not sanction the invasion of Iraq despite the fact Bush tried to get their concurrence. Now let’s look at the impact how many Americans were killed and Injured from Clinton compared with Bush? Better think before you answer. How much money did the Clinton actions cost compared with Bush. Better think VERY hard about this one. What is the reaction of the world to the action of Clinton compared with the actions of Bush in Iraq? That will not require any thought! You are so full of BS. You try the same thing every time YOUR BOY is shown to be WRONG-- You want to attack Clinton. Bush is the president and the current state of affairs is because of GWB not CLINTON!!!!!

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/




Col, aren't you the one who always tells us we are not the enforcement agency of the U.N.?  LMAO!

Clinton was acting as part of UN supported action and Bush was not. .


Col, aren't you the one who always tells us we are not the enforcement agency of the U.N.? LMAO!


I believe there was UN sanction for our action under Clinton. I KNOW there was NO UN approval to Invade Iraq. Also what about the impact in terms of Dead ,Injured and Cost between what Clinton did and what Bush did?


You are the LAMO

Col, aren't you the one who always tells us we are not the enforcement agency of the U.N.?

If the UN Security Council directed FORCE like in Korea, then as part of the UN the United States would be authorized as part of the UN Force to take action. That is NOT what Bush did in Iraq!

That's not the issue col.  You constantly claim the U.S. is not the "enforcement" agency for the U.N., so you are contradicting yourself as usual.  Once again, it's ok if a democrat does it.

“That's not the issue col. You constantly claim the U.S. is not the "enforcement" agency for the U.N., so you are contradicting yourself as usual. Once again, it's ok if a democrat does it.”


That is correct we are NOT the enforcement agent for the UN. However IF the UN Security Council votes to use force, we can be PART of that UN Force. Our invasion in Iraq was NOT a UN Security Council Action and just because Saddam violated UN Resolutions that did not give the U.S. the authority to invade Iraq! In addition, Iraq did not pose any threat to the United States in 2002-2003 and we have caused the Civil War and the establishment of al Qaeda operations in Iraq. That has NOT made us more secure. Bush is telling us about the danger from al Qaeda in Iraq which we all understand. If Bush had not invaded Iraq, al Qaeda would not be conducting offensive operations in Iraq! We did NOT have a valid reason for our invasion of Iraq since they had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda was not planning operations against the U.S. from Iraq in 2002.

As far as the WMD, it is clear, Bush and Cheney exaggerated that threat and the CIA told Bush that Saddam would not be able to use any WMD he had outside Iraq. Thus even if Saddam had all the Chemical and Boi WMD Bush claimed, it was not a hazard too the U.S. Bush was told by the CIA that Saddam had no nuclear program and all the Mushroom cloud talk was to scare the American people and Congress to approve his invasion plan! We attacked a “Paper Tiger” and then allowed the internal factions and al Qaeda to begin the fighting that we see today and that has killed 3,500 of our troops and injured 29,000 more. Great Going George. How many more American Troops will you allow to be killed and injured needlessly in the Civil war you allowed to develop in Iraq?

why would the UN authorize us to invade iraq when they were getting rich off of iraq

There were plenty of valid reasons, just because you don't agree doesn't mean they aren't valid.




Oh, now it's exaggerated.  Did you finally get busted in your lies and change your tune?

Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Why would the UN authorize us to invade Iraq when they were getting rich off of Iraq?


That is not the issue. The issue is did Bush act within international law when he invaded Iraq? The answer is NO. The UN did not authorize the invasion, we were not attacked by Iraq and we were in no danger from Iraq.


There were plenty of valid reasons, just because you don't agree doesn't mean they aren't valid. What are the reasons?



Oh, now it's exaggerated. Did you finally get busted in your lies and change your tune?

What were exaggerated were the Bush claims of the types and amounts of WMD. The truth is there was NO WMD except for some old gas filled Artillery shells that posed NO danger unless someone invaded Iraq! I did not lie about the WMD or anything else. It was Bush and Cheney that lied about the danger Saddam posed to this country.

we do not answer to the UN nore should we

the UN is anti american