More Stupid Democrat Criticisms

[S10xGN]

Hey WE4ster,

Do you even own a GN or are you just hangin' out here spewing political cr@p to the masses?.

FWIW, President Bush's tax plan has helped my family tremendously! The wife (retired) and I paid $8800 federal tax on $63,000 income (that's around 14%) and that income figure is after standard and personal deductions. If you add back those deductions, our federal tax rate becomes less than 11%! That's a far cry from the $22,000 tax bill we had during P!ss Willie's administration!

 

[We4ster]

I own a 87 WE-4...

Why dont I like bush?

He's surrounded himself with bad choices/bad people.

He's involved us in an unrighteous war, I was in one and I know what its like.

I believe that we have the right to protect ourselves and we did when we went after the taliban not iraq.

When a president lies to you, you lose faith in his judgement.
I honestly believe we were mislead/lied to.

I dont like seeing our soldiers killed for the wrong reasons.
We eliminated Hussein, but we cant eliminate the problem.
They are religious fanatics and will continue their war against us or their own people. Read your history books!
Did you know we had two s/f teams inside hussein's palace during the gulf war and bush senior wouldnt pull the trigger?

Again, I am not a Democrat....I just want whats right for our country and if it means speaking out against the present administration, I will do so..

 

[SinistrV6]

Thanks for the honest reply WE4ster. I don't agree with you, but at least you're honest and have reasons for your feelings. Many of these other guys seem to just follow whatever the liberal media machine spits out to them today.

 

[We4ster]

Interesting Reading

Trading a Saudi alliance for an Iraqi one

April 1, 2004

By The White House memory improved this week. It now admits a meeting between President Bush and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke did take place the day after Sept. 11, and Bush did press Clarke to find a connection to Iraq.

Seeking to discredit Clarke, the White House must be careful not to discredit itself. Last week it cast doubt on Clarke's report of the meeting at which he told Bush the Sept. 11 attacks were al-Qaeda's work, and Bush told him to look for links to Iraq.

The meeting and what was said is no longer in dispute, and the question is – why did Bush do it? Clarke says the administration failed to focus on al-Qaeda before and after Sept. 11 because it was obsessed with Iraq.

The answer is found in the neoconservative agenda involving Saudi Arabia and Iraq pushed on Bush from the beginning. Sept. 11 provided the pretext, but first Bush had to sell the public on war. So the hype began about the "urgent threat" Iraq posed to America because of its ties to al-Qaeda and possession of so-called "weapons of mass destruction."

The leader of the neoconservative brigade is Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, who had advocated invading Baghdad for a decade. The brigade's bible was the "Project for the New American Century," written in 2000, calling for a permanent U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf – even "should Saddam pass from the scene." Its view was that U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia was not sustainable because of "Saudi domestic sensibilities" – meaning Wahhabi Islam.

The project's goal was to replace Saudi Arabia with Iraq as the U.S. base of Gulf operations. Iran, it noted, "may well prove as large a threat" as Iraq.

After Sept. 11, Bush tried to sell war by linking Saddam and al-Qaeda, but there was no evidence. "For bureaucratic reasons," Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair last May, "we settled on weapons of mass destruction because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

the rest of the article is here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040401/news_lz1e1golds.html

 

[ThikStik]

Its gonna take a mushroom cloud to convince some of the evil that is directed to America. And that there has not been a single terr attack since, is an astounding job by the repubs. And keep in mind, one single attack would bring the economy to its knees.

America is not a bully-geez, we even rebuild countries that were our first strick attackers.

Saddam very well might have dumped WMD's in the ocean. I dont care if he had them or not. Im sure the Kurds whose subdermal layers of skin were peeling off and who's corneas are now opaque milky tissues, consider Saddam's chemicals to be WMD's.

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by We4ster



They are religious fanatics and will continue their war against us or their own people. Read your history books!
Did you know we had two s/f teams inside hussein's palace during the gulf war and bush senior wouldnt pull the trigger?

Again, I am not a Democrat....I just want whats right for our country and if it means speaking out against the present administration, I will do so..

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by We4ster



They are religious fanatics and will continue their war against us or their own people. Read your history books!
Did you know we had two s/f teams inside hussein's palace during the gulf war and bush senior wouldnt pull the trigger?

Again, I am not a Democrat....I just want whats right for our country and if it means speaking out against the present administration, I will do so..

First of all, as I recall, they did attack us. There is no stopping the war until they are all dead...........and good riddance. And who's gonna' kill them? Americans. Because the French won't, (like who needs 'em) because they agree with you.

You're not a democrat? What the hell are ya? FRENCH?

 

[GNandGS]

Originally posted by We4ster
Interesting Reading

Trading a Saudi alliance for an Iraqi one

April 1, 2004

By The White House memory improved this week. It now admits a meeting between President Bush and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke did take place the day after Sept. 11, and Bush did press Clarke to find a connection to Iraq.

Seeking to discredit Clarke, the White House must be careful not to discredit itself. Last week it cast doubt on Clarke's report of the meeting at which he told Bush the Sept. 11 attacks were al-Qaeda's work, and Bush told him to look for links to Iraq.

I dont ever remember a denial of meetings... nor was/is there a denial of looking for links. Within a week of the meeting you describe, the report was that Iraq was likely not the planner of the tower attact. As such, the investigation continued to move on.

To NOT look at Iraq would be naive and silly. The dispute is that Clark claims he was given the impression to look for ties to Iraq in a more uh, "thorough" way than he might have normally. HOWEVER, even Clark while under oath will/did say he was not instructed to fabricate anything.

I for one dont consider Clark a source. Under OATH he says we couldnt have done anything, under any administration, to prevent the attacks but NOW (this week anyway) he says it could have been prevented? Must have been that Clinton oath... the kind that doesnt matter? bleh. Then there is the audio tape of him contradicting himself... then an almost lie about Rice. Ick.

The "selling" of the need for action in Iraq included several reasons. If you look at transcripts you will see this. The resolution authorizing force backs that up!

That article is just trash, but nice try. When building their timeline they also forgot about Clinton and his actions against Iraq, the policy to remove SH, and that somehow if its Wolfowitz to blame, we dont learn how Clinton came to his Iraq policy. When an article uses "neo" anything or only tells part of the story its credibility is gone! Dont think so? The end of the article attributes its breakthru of "facts" to Clark! lol.

S

Shawn

 

[We4ster]

More republican rhetoric

Spin Spin Spin

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by We4ster
Interesting Reading

Trading a Saudi alliance for an Iraqi one

I've been saying that for over a year now (long before the Iraq war) and if this board didn't purge old posts I could prove it.

It actually is pretty obvious (since 16 of the 911 hijackers were Saudi) It kind of shuts up those that say "why are you going to Iraq? Saddam had Nothing to do with 911!!!"

Long term, this is not a bad thing. I think Ollie North would describe it as a "neat idea".

 

[GNandGS]

Originally posted by We4ster
More republican rhetoric

Spin Spin Spin

Define the rhetoric in this... if I have it straight, you: Find an article praising Clark for bringing all sorts of things to light.

Then I: I present a few instances of how that article might have SPIN of its own, especially now that we know Clark cant tell the truth, and you offer THAT as a response?

The meetings were never denied at least not in the news I watched or read. That article says otherwise. Am I psychic?

S

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by We4ster
More republican rhetoric

Spin Spin Spin

Quite the compelling argument. Can we hear more?

 

[We4ster]

Lets see,

Clinton fools around and lies about it.....gets impeached

Bush gets us in a war with Iraq by lying......Americans DIE
and you call him a hero?

I guess its alright to be a lying Republican and get innocent Americans killed. But if your dare cheat on your wife and lie???

Republican Values...Dont like em...Dont believe in em!

 

[19gn87]

You know, I don't wear a specific 'label' and generally don't comment, but I can only hope you are thankful that thousands have given their lives in an effort to protect your freedom to put forth your views. I'm always left with a burning question regarding the constant, non-productive criticisms...wouldn't it be more helpful to at least include some specific solutions?

 

[Silver 6]

"Bush gets us in a war with Iraq by lying......"

We4ster,

What an excellent example of how you can spin something long enough and hard enough that some people will believe it to be truth.

Sadam had to go. That is one point almost everyone aggreed on and now that it is done, "George Bush got us into an unjust war." Republicans and Democrats, America and the UN all shared the same reports on Iraq.

Now it is very easy to go back and post quotes from all of the above supporting military action against Iraq. This includes Senator Kerry saying we had the right to take action even without a UN directive.

You are saying President Bush lied to you. What did the Democratic leadership do for the last ten years on the exact same issue? They were saying the same thing.

The true difference I see is one man took action.

 

[We4ster]

You are missing the point...

A president was impeached for simply lying about his sex life..Which was no ones business to begin with.

Another president lies about reasons to go to war...No reprimand or apology.

Sounds like our value/political systems is really screwed up.

The Republicans hated Mr. Bill and they finally got to him. Just goes to show you how far some people will go to get what they want.
And you wonder why our country is so divided, our political parties are going to extremes to get their "man" in power. The name calling and dirty tactics that are/will be used by BOTH parties in this election are disgracefull! WE are embarassing ourselves in front of the whole world. Its no wonder we have lost the respect of foreign nations...I'm embarrassed.

 

[Silver 6]

This is because you ASSume he lied.

I ASSume to believe he did not. I believe it was a correct action that was way overdue.

There are a lot of other people who believe it too. They wait sometimes from the day before outside police stations in Iraq to get a chance to serve in the new police force of THEIR free country. Now the terrorists are attacking them even as they wait in line. And the lines continue to grow.

50,000,000 people with FREEDOM.

No WMD? Yeah I know. Sadam didn't have these either, just ask the UN.

http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/news/mig25_foxbat_iraq.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3116259.stm

It is kind of neat how the BBC calls them brand new and aged aircraft in the same report. These are front line fighters in Russia today. Also note the BBC does not report these fighters sales to Iraq were banned by the UN.

 

[UNGN]

Bill Clinton used the same WMD argument to launch 500+ cruise missiles against Iraq. Was he lying, too?

Of course he was.

WE4ster, you are the most idealist cynical person I've run across and I have to respect you for that.

You seem to hate politicians for being politicians (instead of leaders) and yet, when someone leads, you say it's in the wrong direction.

Clinton's military legacy is thugs around the world now know they can call a camera crew, kill and mutilate 10 - 20 western troops and the American people will throw up their hands and say "That's it, we can't win, get out, now"

Richard Clarke won't talk about Rwanda where that strategy was employed and over a million people died as a result.

By not acting we ensure repeat "performances" over and over and over. Thugs always seem to "go with what works".

 

[We4ster]

Silver,

Mig25's were built in the 60's!...old cold war aircraft..

"Iraq ordered MiG-25s from the USSR in 1979, in a large package including some 240 aircraft and helicopters. The Soviets conditioned the delivery on permission of stationing up to 18.000 their "advisors" in Iraq (at the time the whole IrAF was only 24.000 strong): finally, the 24 MiG-25s that were to be deployed in Iraq had also to be defended and escorted by a squadron each of Soviet-flown MiG-21MFs and MiG-23MLs".

UNGN:

The military should be run by the military and politicians should be sent to the middle east. I'd rather see them shot then American soldiers.

We did act, and we took out the taliban, or so we thought. Have you been reading about Afghanistan lately? Does the so-called democracy that we set up run that country? Yeah, right...Its the warlords/druglords.

I've said this before and I will say it again. WE can not bring a democracy into a Moslem state. READ YOUR HISTORY BOOKS! Our actions are misguided. We will continue to lose lives and Billions of dollars and will accomplish NOTHING in the middle east. We captured Hussein, BFD. A S/F hit team could have taken him out for a lot less money and loss of lives.
If the freed Iraquis are so much better off, why are they killing Americans? We rid them of Hussein, so now they can focus on killing each other and they will. The Shiites and Sunnis will continue to kill Americans and Iraqis.
We could send Pat Roberts and his wonderful Christian Fundamentalists to the middle east and try to convert them all. I know he would love to try. Hmmmm, that might not be a bad idea. ? They'd make quick work of him too.

 

[ricapito]

someone needs to shut down this thread!!!

this divisive thread adds no value to TB.com or our community