O
THIS makes me REALLY ANGRY!
- Thread starter kat2220
- Start date
Old Ironhead, I really wish you would make up your mind if you would like to continue posting here. First you make a post in the General Nascar Chat, where rajflyboy blasted the board with 75+ posts, that since he hadn't dissed another forum member he should just be left alone. Click here to read the ACTUAL post. THEN, you post your above comments "sucks to be you". You are certainly walking a thin line, and if you choose to keep this crap up, your posting on this forum will be severely limited.
M
Mopardh9
Guest
Once again Oldironhead you don't dissapoint me with your witt!
Whizzer
Gig'em
thats because you're closed minded,sucks to be you. [/b][/quote]
Normally, I stay out of political discussions but once again, a poster has taken an attitude and accused others of being closed minded. Can't get someone else to see it thier way?? BASH'EM !!! Hummmmmmmm !!!
So without further adieu, enjoy this political intrique !!!!
There have been rumors floating that Enron courted the President and the vice-president and this is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear much about in the media ---
a.. Enron's chairman did meet with both the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.
b. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.
c.. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.
d.. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
e.. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest
levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to
grease deals for it.
f.. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for
more than $600 million in just one transaction. Others are
being investigated.
g.. The president under whom all this happened was Bill Clinton.
So ya see, the same thing happens all the time. When Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson, Goldwater's platform was to bomb Hanoi and try to end the war so we could get the hell out of Viet Nam. Johnson's platform was not to increase bombing and instead, descalate the situation there. At least that is what he told the American people while runnning for the office of president against Goldwater. What actually happened was the American people listened to both sides, considered Goldwater a hawk, and believed Johnson.
After Johnson won the election he escalated the war. No bombing of Hanoi, just major escalation.
This does not mean either the democrats or the republicans are any more or less vile than the other. It means there are skeletons in the closets of all political parties. It does mean if you feel President Bush made a wrong decision in attacking Iraq, do something about it other than urinate and make gutteral sounds through the vocal chords. Especially on this forum. It is fine to do so here, but the power and ability to make changes lie elsewhere. Unless President Bush or some of his cabinet are visitors here.
Consider this. Did the United States congress person or senator who represents your district vote in favor of the Iraqi invasion ???
Call them. Tell them how you feel. If you know who they are.
Without thier support President Bush is just another pimple on an elephants azz when it comes to passing bills and spending on these projects and wars.
In other words, get over the fact others might not be persuaded by your arguments. They are intelligent in thier logic. And who knows, maybe tomorrow, they will change thier mind. Doubtful, with the attitude some of the posters have here that should the ones who do change thier opinion will ever tell those whose choice of words in condemnation of differing opinions to thier own, border on the obtuse.
G
Gollum
Guest
Pretty stern warning Maj. Now lets see it he heeds to the warning.
T
Tommy29
Guest
What is the worst lie a president can tell?
" I did not have sexual relations with that women Miss Lewinsky"
or
" He has weapons of mass destruction the world's deadliest weapons which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies"
" I did not have sexual relations with that women Miss Lewinsky"
or
" He has weapons of mass destruction the world's deadliest weapons which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies"
Whizzer
Gig'em
Is someone suggesting the Clinton Administration never claimed there were WMD in Iraq ??? Or am I misreading the quote ?????
Both the President Clinton and and Vice-President Gore acknowledged and insisted thier "intelligence" sources proved Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and commented freely about the existence of same.
Take the "lie" and weigh it carefully because the "lie" feeds from the information gleened and passed from one administration to the other, when it comes to WMD. The largest percentage of President Bush's information and verification of WMD came from the Clinton Administration.
Both Presidents felt the Iraqi's were a major threat to this nation based on information gleened from the post-Gulf War days and Clinton administration.
Which points out the similarities and differences of the two Presidents. One administration acted and the other didn't.
Was the action appropriate ??
History will tell us and no matter what your opinion is, it DOES NOT warrant the use of disrespect or name calling to those who fail to share your opinion.
And just so ya know here folks, I ain't discussing the "right or wrong" of this issue.
I respect your opinion, but don't tell me I'm on drugs or say "it must suck to be you" or that I find it hard to live with myself because we do not share the same opinion.
Give me respect, I'll return it, no matter how strongly we disagree. And that is the way it should be with everyone here.
M
Mopardh9
Guest
I agreee whizzer, i tend to be quite strong in my opinions at times,but i try not to bash in any way, i might get a little sarcastic at times.....lol. The whole issue of WMD is a touchy one for sure, i think they were there at one time, but if you consider the time frame in which Iraq had to move them it is quite possible they did in fact move them. I did read an article once that said they were moved to the desert some where in Iran and that article was on Worldnetdaily. I don't know how true it is, but i do really feel that at one time Iraq had WMD !
T
Tommy29
Guest
Oh they knew Iraq has weapons but they are the same ones as they had in the 80's that Bush Sr. and Reagan sold to them to fight the Iranians.
G
Gollum
Guest
What planet are you from. Yes the Iraqis bought conventional weapons. The United States didn't sell then chemical or bioloigacal weapons. They had both of them because they used them. The US did not trust Iraq that far. :lol:
T
Tommy29
Guest
Ha where in my reply does it say biological or chemical.
T
Tommy29
Guest
Also something I found interesting was that the United States gets first bidding on all of Iraq's resources and the company that bought the oil is Halliburton. Halliburton's former CEO is none other than our own Vice President Dick Chenney. So all I have to say is Hey France Germany Russia SUCK IT!
B
bowtie
Guest
:yawner:
H
Happy29
Guest
The second one.
I keep hearing people shutting Clinton for those sexual relations, what happens when Bush sends troops to die on possibly false information?
The WMDS still cant be found, yet George W. Bush finds a bullet or conventional missle head in the ground, the media reports it and everyone thinks that we're closer to finding these WMDs, we've had these false alarms for like months now bout WMDs being found, where are they?
I didnt support the war, however now that we're involved, I support my troops however unfortunately we're in there for the long haul. Yet, Bush wants to build the country himself without the aid of our allies and give the contracts to several corporations who's leaders he plays golf with every weekend? Or is he trying to spread American democracy to a country that clearly wont accept it. Another example of Bush ticking off our allies. Why doesnt he want their help?
And what about the September 11th report? Why were 23 pages cut out of the 2002 report? Maybe because George W. Bush wanted to protect his Saudi buddies, all oil giving, rights-repressing princes who G.W takes to his ranch in Texas every year. Why are videos now emerging of terrorists training in Saudi barracks?
If Bush ever wants to get that approval rating back up, he'll have to start answering to the American people.
G
Gollum
Guest
You said WMD that means all. They are WMD. And those two were the one that worried every one the most.
T
Tommy29
Guest
Weapons yes hmm mass no dont see it. destruction no not that either. hmm looks like i didnt say that after al.
T
Tommy29
Guest
God Bless you Happy29 you got it right. Thank you for sticking up for what you believe in and what is right.
T
Tommy29
Guest
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish." George H.W. Bush “A World Transformed” written 5 years ago on why he did not go after Saddam.
M
Mopardh9
Guest
The world was a different place back in '91, the UN had more influence over what went on. I think if Senior Bush were in the present day he would of reacted the same way as his son did. There were and probably still are WMDs, it has been documented that Saddam used them on his own people. Like i said in a previous post, given the time frame in which Saddam had between 1991 and 2003, he most likely moved WMDs to another country. Taking Saddam out of power sends a message to other terrorists countries that terrorism won't be tolerated. If circumstances had been the same back in 1991 George senior would have reacted differently, if his country had come under attack he would of sent a message too. Occupying Iraq will be a long tedious process, lives will be lost, but in the long run it is a good thing IMO. Happy and Tommy you make some valid points, i know there are questions that are left in the grey area or even in the dark, but i still think going into Iraq was necessary.
M
Mustang
Guest
This has gotin old
O
Old Ironhead
Guest
FearBush discussion forum
Since alot of people here equate discussing politics to the plague,here is a place you may discuss Bush,Clinton or whatever your heart desires.
S
smack500
Guest
If the name of the site in anyway indicates what the site is like that doesnt seem like an EQUAL place to discuss politics either.
O
Old Ironhead
Guest
I think that you should browse the forum before commenting. There is alot of spirited debate there.To say the least. Alot of pro Bush people show up there too. Needless to say the language tends to get quite colorful.
G
Gollum
Guest
Weapons yes hmm mass no dont see it. destruction no not that either. hmm looks like i didnt say that after al.
[/b][/quote]If you don't see . You need to get glasses. Destruction doesn't always mean distroying building. You can kill more people with chem. or bio. weapons You can kill more people with them than you can with an a-bomb. Saddam used them on the Iranians and his own people .And killed thousands. But you go ahead and belive eanythin you read on a Bush bashing web site.
O
Old Ironhead
Guest
And you can believe anything you want on a pro Bush website.
Gollum.
Gollum.
J
JrFan4ever
Guest
This is silly guys. Ya'll need to just stop fighting about this stuff. 
G
Gollum
Guest
Why stop now. They have been fighting over politics since hmmm let's see maybe George Washington. :lol: But your right I done.Originally posted by JrFan4ever@Dec 13 2003, 11:55 PM
This is silly guys. Ya'll need to just stop fighting about this stuff.
M
Mopardh9
Guest
Yeh me too, but i'm sure there will be another hotly debated topic coming to this website anytime now.
Whizzer
Gig'em
YESSIR-REBOB !!!!!!!!!! Just revisiting an old thread to bring up some more interesting information to those who think President Bush acted solely on information gained by members of his intelligence (?) group.
Subject: Fw: It matters little where the information came from, both parties seemed to think the same way.
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction
"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
"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." S
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"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
"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
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"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
"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
"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 is calculating 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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Posted to prove BOTH political parties were convinced there were WMD in Iraq, not just the current administration.
Subject: Fw: It matters little where the information came from, both parties seemed to think the same way.
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction
"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
"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." S
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"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
"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
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"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
"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
"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 is calculating 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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Posted to prove BOTH political parties were convinced there were WMD in Iraq, not just the current administration.
97forever
Team Owner
Whew!
B
bowtie
Guest
Very interesting Whiz. Looks like some of the biggest war opponets were for it at some time or other. MAybe they're pizzed because it wasn't their idea.