As the list grows, Bush is unmoved

[humanhybrid]

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nybres153893324jul15,0,2772239,print.column?coll=n y-ny-columnists It is so sad that our children will die. When our president has been shown to be AWOL FOR HIS SERVICE TO HIS COUNTRY

[Sirius]

Would it be anyless sad if he wasn't awol? I think this war is unjust regardless of the presidents military history. We are there, we started it, and finishing it is the only option, of course with the UN's help.

[Conservative Front]

Interesting article, It seems to drift farleft from center will a complete biased towards Bush, and failed to reconize that good Bush has done for the country and the good he's done for the Iraqi people. and any democratic nation.

---end response to hh---

Why is the war unjust Sirius? Was it not right we retaliated against Terrorism? or Is it Bush's fault we got attacked? what exactly would the U.N. do? how would they benefit our war efforts? by immediate withdraw? or perhaps cut the number of our troops and take command of them so we can't stop a pre-emptive terrorist strike against our troops? Are you going to tell me the worlds not safer since the removal of Suddam? Even though he had all the capability in the world to produce WMD's? or the fact he violated almost all the U.N. resolutions to destroy his stock piles of weapons? So if the U.N. failed to convince him the first time why would it work a second time around? oh and lets not forget the Oil for food scandal wasn't it the U.N. making Billion off of Suddam because of Curpshtion? but lets just forget about that and give them power to command are troops in the very country they we're making Billions off of.

---end response to sirius---

[humanhybrid]

Why is the war unjust Sirius? Was it not right we retaliated against Terrorism? or Is it Bush's fault we got attacked? what exactly would the U.N. do? how would they benefit our war efforts? by immediate withdraw? or perhaps cut the number of our troops and take command of them so we can't stop a pre-emptive terrorist strike against our troops? Are you going to tell me the worlds not safer since the removal of Suddam? Even though he had all the capability in the world to produce WMD's? or the fact he violated almost all the U.N. resolutions to destroy his stock piles of weapons? So if the U.N. failed to convince him the first time why would it work a second time around? oh and lets not forget the Oil for food scandal wasn't it the U.N. making Billion off of Suddam because of Curpshtion? but lets just forget about that and give them power to command are troops in the very country they we're making Billions off of. Prove that Saddam had anything to do with 911 and its been one YEAR & 96 DAYS ... AND STILL NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ. ---end response to CS---

[dutchie]

Interesting article, It seems to drift farleft from center will a complete biased towards Bush, and failed to reconize that good Bush has done for the country and the good he's done for the Iraqi people. and any democratic.
Hahahaha!!! "Seems to drift"?!? "Biased"?!? How would you describe your own views? Unbiased? :rolling:

[Giana1998]

You have got to be kidding! I can't believe Americans are still on the BUSH AWOLed 30 some odd years ago!

Tell me 1 thing Kerry has done for this country in 19 years on the senate floor? I am sure you'll just sit there and stare at a blank page for hours.

Feed your mind and read. Don't take the lazy way out and fill your head with biased media propaganda.

Lets not forget that our prior president actually ducked out of the war completely and went to England to protest.

God Bless America, and President Bush! G

[humanhybrid]

You have got to be kidding! I can't believe Americans are still on the BUSH AWOLed 30 some odd years ago! Yes! do beleive, as he is still our president


Tell me 1 thing Kerry has done for this country in 19 years on the senate floor? I am sure you'll just sit there and stare at a blank page for hours.
What has Bush done on the senate floor, at least Kerry wasnt AWOL!

Feed your mind and read. Don't take the lazy way out and fill your head with biased media propaganda.
Its pure facts, no need to be biased.

Lets not forget that our prior president actually ducked out of the war completely and went to England to protest. How can one forget. He was honest enough, and intelligent enough to know what the war was about.


God Bless America, and President Bush! G Superstitious hope that we wont be terrorized for invading a sovereign country with no connections to 911 "1 YEAR & 97 DAYS ... AND STILL NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ." But plenty of death that YOU FEEL NEEDS BLESSING :dead:

[Defiant Noquisi]

Interesting article, It seems to drift farleft from center will a complete biased towards Bush, and failed to reconize that good Bush has done for the country and the good he's done for the Iraqi people. and any democratic nation. An article like that would be against Bush CF, just as one you might write would be biased towards him. Yes, I do believe that in the long run the Iraqi people may be better served. However, Bush's record at home is frought with lies and deceit and that is unconcienable. Being tricked into going to war is not an honorable thing to do as the leader of this Nation and representative to the world. Clinton was impeached for less.


Was it not right we retaliated against Terrorism? or Is it Bush's fault we got attacked? Saddam didnt attack us. The worst thing Saddam did directly at the US and the UN is thumb his nose at us. I cant ignore what he was levelling against his own people so for that I hope that the ends justify the means. However, Bush and Co. should still be held to full account for the deceit and abuse of power he used while in office to gain favor for war. Just for the Iraqi's alone this was not an unjustfied action, the web spinning that was directed at the American people was.

The UN has become little more than a group of powerless windbags. When I see them take action against Israel for the same disregard for UN rulings and the abuse they level at the Palestinians, I may change my mind.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Tell me 1 thing Kerry has done for this country in 19 years on the senate floor? I am sure you'll just sit there and stare at a blank page for hours. I would like to see the blank page you are mentioning. The very least Kerry did was co-sponsor and help get passed the Violence Against Women Act.


Lets not forget that our prior president actually ducked out of the war completely and went to England to protest. Considering what was actually occuring behind closed doors regarding the Vietnam war, I can almost understand why anyone would have tried to get out of going. Fighting over individual war records is redundant. Kerry most likely had the same information and went anyway. No one knows how they would have reacted then unless they were in the situation themselves.


God Bless America, and President Bush! G and Senator Kerry, and all the troops, and all the countries, and everyone reading this, and............. :D

[bbbv3.5]

Wouldnt the dead liked to be remembered and bleesed humanhybrid??? :vbroll:

[substand]

How can one forget. He was honest enough, and intelligent enough to know what the war was about.


HA! you know no bounds...



Superstitious hope that we wont be terrorized for invading a sovereign country with no connections


we would have been terrorized whether or not we did it, surely you can see that.



The worst thing Saddam did directly at the US and the UN is thumb his nose at us.


and lets not forget the near daily attacks since the first gulf war. and breaking legally binding agreements that ended the first gulf war, in my eyes, is more than putting his shoe in our face.

[Conservative Front]

Prove he didn't have anything to do with 9/11. The 9/11 Commision seems too agree he did. Read the report.

---end response to HH---

Kerry wanted a Nuclear Freeze, Kerry Wanted to Raise Taxes,Kerry wants more social programs,Kerry wants bigger government, Kerry wants the U.N. oh wait I guess you're Right Kerry hasn't done anything...haha except being the most liberal senator in America and the most Liberal Presidental Hopeful

---end response to Giana---

We weren't tricked into war, we were told why we went too war. Bush has done nothing but good for familys and the working class. He freed a nation of people from an evil dictator. He's reduced taxes on ALL of us. He's proposed bills to end abortion and stop samesex marriage. He protects the consitiution and he protects the citizens of his nation. seems like his at home record is pretty good.

There seems to be more evidents everyday that Saddam had links with Al-Qeada, Plus he still had sarin shells which he announced where destroyed. He's committed genocide against his own people. And Bush didn't lie to the nation I think he was rather forth coming and still is admitting mistakes if they where made. He never holds back it seems. Now I realize that faulty intelligence of the CIA played a role into going to Iraq but you can hardly plan that on Bush. It was Clinton who destroyed our intelligence he cut funding and wrote the law that wouldn't allow the FBI and CIA officals to share data. Plus Suddam had orders placed for Yellow Cake to develop Nukes...

The U.N. is a disgrace there completely corrupt. "Ahem... Oil For Food" thats why they didn't want us in Iraq.

---end response to defiant---

[substand]

Prove he didn't have anything to do with 9/11. The 9/11 Commision seems too agree he did. Read the report.

First, in this country (1), the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused (except in situations of parole or probation, in which you agree to “prove” you haven’t taken drugs, for example, while you are on probation).
(1= the US for all the many non USians, but i just wanted to say "this country" because i thought it made the sentance sound better)

Your first sentence is the same thing as saying to me "prove you didn't have anything to do with 9/11." It’s ludicrous. I can't prove it. I can say, "I wasn't there, I didn't hijack the planes." So can Saddam. I can say “I didn’t even know any of those guys.” And you could say, “prove it.” And I would say, “how?” I only have my word and their dead words. I can say “I’ve never been to the middle-east to receive indoctrination in terrorist ways, and I have no motive.” And you could say “prove it.” And I would say, “well, my passport hasn’t been marked by any of those countries,” and I’d produce my passport for your inspection before you could ask me to prove it. And then you could say, “well, you could have hopped the border to avoid using a passport.” And if I haven’t shown it already, this logic is retarded.

The 9/11 Commission never said anything about Saddam having anything to do with 9/11. Perhaps you should read the report. The final report is not out yet, but Staff Statement 16, which is the “Outline of the 9/11 Plot,” only mentions Iraq in this statement: “We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi
intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available—including
investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting—we do not believe
that such a meeting occurred.”

Further, “Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan ''do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship'', according to the commission's report,” (from http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24226) … this means that while Iraq and al-qaeda had “contact” at points with each other, NO COLLABORATION appears to exist based on the evidence. So the report says the opposite of what you say… Again, perhaps YOU need to read it.



"Ahem... Oil For Food" thats why they didn't want us in Iraq.


good one…

(edited because i forgot the slash in ending one of my quotes)

[Sirius]

Why is the war unjust Sirius? Was it not right we retaliated against Terrorism? or Is it Bush's fault we got attacked? what exactly would the U.N. do? how would they benefit our war efforts? by immediate withdraw? or perhaps cut the number of our troops and take command of them so we can't stop a pre-emptive terrorist strike against our troops? Are you going to tell me the worlds not safer since the removal of Suddam? Even though he had all the capability in the world to produce WMD's? or the fact he violated almost all the U.N. resolutions to destroy his stock piles of weapons? So if the U.N. failed to convince him the first time why would it work a second time around? oh and lets not forget the Oil for food scandal wasn't it the U.N. making Billion off of Suddam because of Curpshtion? but lets just forget about that and give them power to command are troops in the very country they we're making Billions off of.

Why is the war unjust, because it was based on lies, and they have never once shown solid proof that saddam was involed with the attacks on 9/11, or any future attacks. As a matter of FACT Osama and saddam hate eachother, and osama considers saddam a bad Muslim.

Do you even know what the UN is? It mean the United Nations, all the agreeing countries working together for a common goal. They seen the truth, why the U.S. wanted to go into Iraq, for oil, and for pay back.

The world is far from safer now that we kicked Saddam out of Iraq, we decided that it was in our own best intrest to make the middle east even more hostile to Americans.

Ok man, when they even freaking find any WMD i'll tell you that I was wrong on this.

First off, the oil for food scandal came out long after we invaded Iraq, and really, how much different than Cheny taking his oil company into Iraq on a no bid contract, and also his company overcharging the goverment?

We are a part of the United Nations, we are a superpower weather we like it or not, what we do affects everyone in the world not just ourselves. When we do something we shouldn't, the whole world see's it. Bush has made more enemies in the last 4 years than I could of ever thought possible.

oh, and yes, it is Bush's fault we got attacked, as soon as we pulled out of Israel peace talks, he sealed our fate. But this part is my opinion.

[Defiant Noquisi]

and lets not forget the near daily attacks since the first gulf war. and breaking legally binding agreements that ended the first gulf war, in my eyes, is more than putting his shoe in our face. The breaking of agreements is what I meant by thumbing his nose at us and the UN. Him doing that was incredibly arrogant and dishonorable, but he wasnt attacking the US on US soil. What daily attacks are you bringing up? Im having a brain fart here.

[Defiant Noquisi]

We weren't tricked into war, we were told why we went too war. I suppose that actually saying were going to war isnt tricking us since we did. However, the thinking behind what led us to go to war, which is becoming increasingly obvious through investigations, was at best "innaccurate" when told to the American people. He has since then been elusive and uncooperative with the investigations, even going so far as to dictating how his questioning can be done. It is not up to him to decide that its up to the investigators, and he should be held under equal scrutiny as anyone else. Just because he is this country's leader doesnt give him carte blanche to bend or break rules. Strange how Clinton was hung for it(lies) but somehow Bush is held above it and even supported for it.

Also, while I completely agree with the war in Afghanistan, I can hardly begin to say that other than removing Saddam from power and unable to terrorize the Iraqi's and attempt to wipe out the Kurds does this benefit us directly. Thats why the spinmeisters were able to weave such a powerful tale to be spread upon the masses to gain support for furthering the war outside of Afghanistan. They got the people's support while the want of vengeance was still fresh.

In other words, we were deceived into believeing that there was an imminent danger coming from Iraq that the US was in danger of being attacked. Since then the proof has been otherwise.


Bush has done nothing but good for familys and the working class. Ill let the current economics answer that for themselves. I certainly dont agree with the crap that the rich get off, but I dont see how he has helped the working class. Especially since I have lost a job and quite a bit of pay throughout. A $500 dollar refund does not make up for what I lost in income and benefits and thats in a career field that is struggling to get and keep good, experienced people such as myself. The loopholes and costs in the "No Child Left Behind" Act is terrible.


He freed a nation of people from an evil dictator. I completely agree with that statement.


He's reduced taxes on ALL of us. At the cost of many valuable programs and a very underfunded military.


He's proposed bills to end abortion and stop samesex marriage. Which I completely disagree with.


He protects the consitiution and he protects the citizens of his nation. seems like his at home record is pretty good. I dont see how unlawful search and seizures, being capable of entering my home to look around and not telling me they have been there, the right to a speedy trial and detaining me without evidence as under suspicion of being in collusion with terrorists somehow "protects" the Constitution and my constitutional rights. See the Patriot Act and all the orphans from its spawn trying to be slipped in under various other bills.


There seems to be more evidents everyday that Saddam had links with Al-Qeada, Links yes, however no proof of a collaboration between Saddam and Al Queda exists unless you have it. If you do then I would like to see it please. Since the 9/11 panel report nor the Senate inquiry has found evidence of anymore than that I dont see how "links" somehow proves beyond a reasonable doubt of actual plans for terrorism.


Plus he still had sarin shells which he announced where destroyed. Are these the same 20 year old shells that the weapons inspectors had tried to tag and account for?


He's committed genocide against his own people. No argument there.


And Bush didn't lie to the nation I think he was rather forth coming and still is admitting mistakes if they where made. He never holds back it seems. Yes, I can see where one would assume that since he is so forthcoming after the fact and when evidence proves him wrong otherwise.


Now I realize that faulty intelligence of the CIA played a role into going to Iraq but you can hardly plan that on Bush. I dont know what kind of "plan" you mention but I do blame him for spreading false information. We started learning of the false information shortly after we invaded but he was still talking about it in his 2003 State of the Union address. http://www.fair.org/press-releases/beyond-niger.html


It was Clinton who destroyed our intelligence he cut funding and wrote the law that wouldn't allow the FBI and CIA officals to share data. I dont see it being Clinton's fault that Bush was spreading lies about the information as late as 2003 and after the information was proved false. That would be like blaming my stepmother for spanking me 10 years ago for being past my curfew because I beat the shit out of you now.


Plus Suddam had orders placed for Yellow Cake to develop Nukes... Uh, can I ask you how current you are on your news? Again, please see above link which by the way, is from 2003.


The U.N. is a disgrace there completely corrupt. "Ahem... Oil For Food" thats why they didn't want us in Iraq. I wont argue that the UN is a virtual waste heap and have stated as such so I have no clue why you point this in my direction. But dont blame just the UN since France and Russia wanted their oil contracts protected and Saddam was making millions off of it himself.

[MetalMilitia]

Further, ?Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan ''do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship'', according to the commission's report,? (from http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24226) ? this means that while Iraq and al-qaeda had ?contact? at points with each other, NO COLLABORATION appears to exist based on the evidence. So the report says the opposite of what you say? Again, perhaps YOU need to read it.

Thank you Subs.


We weren't tricked into war, we were told why we went too war.
Which reason? It seemed to change to fit our needs.


He freed a Nation of people from an evil dictator.

Yep. Saddam is gone, but we put in another CIA asset, and former terrorist.


There seems to be more evidents everyday that Saddam had links with Al-Qeada, Plus he still had sarin shells which he announced where destroyed.

"Loose ties" - In fact, you could say the same about syria, iran, saudi arabia... etc. Don't even get me started on the WMD's.


He's committed genocide against his own people.

The gassing? A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals.


And Bush didn't lie to the nation I think he was rather forth coming and still is admitting mistakes if they where made.

I haven't heard one apology on the mistakes, or is that a sign of weakness? Of course he has been forthcoming, all the 'major' claims in the 2003 SOTU were proven false. What other option does he have? Lie more?


He never holds back it seems. Now I realize that faulty intelligence of the CIA played a role into going to Iraq but you can hardly plan that on Bush.

Maybe he should have hired me, who knew all of this was fabricated. I would have saved them millions of dollars. If he wasn't confident with the information, then he shouldn't have used it. Period.


Plus Suddam had orders placed for Yellow Cake to develop Nukes...

Do you bother to read the news at all? It was proven FALSE shortly after we invaded ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/uranium030714_timeline.html ) ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml ) ( http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1 ) Or is this another conspiracy theory?

-MM- :crs:

[humanhybrid]

Iraqi PM - Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6498.htm
Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.

[MetalMilitia]

I already disclosed all that information. I have also provided background on Allawi, and his history of bombings and possible dealings with the CIA.

We have "Iraq War - Nonsense of the Centruy" - For you to hammer the war
( http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=1863 )

Bush: The worst president in US history? - For criticizing him
( http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=1599 )

The Trial of Saddam Hussein - Covering Saddam's legalities.
( http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=2493 )

The Handover of Iraq - Discussing changes withing Iraqs government
( http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=2456 )

The Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners - Obvious
( http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=2036 )

How many more do we need?

I am about ready to make a whole forum thread SPECIFICALLY designed for Iraq.

This goes for everybody

Please at least do me the favor of going back a few pages, using the search option and looking around for topics that already have 10 pages of replies.

Thanks in advance,
-MM- :crs:

[Conservative Front]

I've never heard of Osama accusing Saddam of being a bad Muslim do you have a source on this?

Yes, I know what the U.N. is and the League of Nations didn't work and the U.N. isn't working. You can put the leaders of all the countrys in one room to try and work problems out diplomatically but that doesn't mean its going to go to par. If X wants B to give him Y but B refuses there not gonna change there minds. and theres still going to be war with or without the U.N.

I'm assuming the middle east was hostile before we booted Suddam (remember 9/11?) and Now we have an Iraq military and government that not only supports what the U.S. has done but It's making it safer for our troops and disrupting terrorism within that country. So lets weight this is in the Iraqi's have a Military now that supports U.S. action They have a government now that won't harbor terrorist. They can internal disrupt terrorist now. so yeah I'm gonna say the world is safer based on the United States Actions and the Actions of its allies.


Yellow Cake. look it up.


Whats you're point? Of course the Oil for Food scandal surfaced after we invaded Iraq how else would we have knowin? The Oil for Food scandal stole several billions to fuel the U.N. and left the Iraq people with out food and without oil. The U.N. didn't want us to invade because they lost a business partner. Cheneys oil company? I'm not really sure how this private business was Cheneys whats you're proof on this and whats you're source?

It's unfortunate that The United States of America is part of the U.N. Yes we are a superpower and we don't need a corrupt organization telling us not to do such and such because they don't want too lose a business partner. Yes, we have enemies but the enemies existed before we invaded Iraq. And you neglected to mention the Allies and too name a few G.B.,Japan,Poland,South Korea,etc...

Maybe if Clinton would have taken care of the problem when he was in office instead of screwing the intern This event would have never taken place It was Clinton forgien policys that got us in this mess.

---end response to Sirius---

Remember, are botched intelligence's was because Clinton signed the bill that wouldn't allow the FBI and CIA to share information, so based on this the intelligence shortcomings lay with Clintons Regime. You can hardly but the blame on Bush for the intelligence short commings.

The economy is gaining alot of ground right now. 2.5 Million jobs have been created in the last finisical year. www.foxnews.com/forbes The economy plummet would have Occurred under any President but Bush did something about it and is already gaining high ground and putting it back on its feet.

And I don't agree with the No Child Left Behind Act.

At the cost of programs that had no benefit to most of the population. I'll pay for myself before I before someone else.

Enemy combatants aren't covered under the constiution.

Links are good enough, If it's proven that there was links between Saddam and Al Qaeda It will just be a Matter of time before the collaboration with 9/11 comes out.

Faults by the U.N. again perhaps? regardless they were still suppose to be destroyed and it doesn't help the terrorist where trying to sell them for 3,500 a shell (Cycloserine)

I haven't seen any reports except the ones that are coming out now about the faulty CIA intelligence's. And he didn't lie he passed on what the CIA told him.

The Yellow Cake report came out last week.

---end response to defiant---

[humanhybrid]

Yes, I know what the U.N. is and the League of Nations didn't work and the U.N. isn't working. Your right because we have tyrants and rouges in positions of power dictating who should go to war on misleading evidence and lies. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&e=1&u=/usatoday/20040716/cm_usatoday/hasiraqwarmadeussaferthatsquestionable

[stewey]

First I shall play conservative

First of all, of course Bush is "unmoved" by the dead of the war. What do you expect him to do?

Bush: Attention citizens of America. We have had some deaths in Iraq, so we are pulling out. Bye!

Second of all, Bush was not AWOL. He did not get sent over, but he was not AWOL either. The reason people think he is AWOL is because one of his training officers said he "did not remember training him." Well for God's sake people, they train thousands of troops. Do you remember the man you passed driving 20 years ago? Nope? Did not think so.

Ok, now time to play liberal.

Allawi does seem a bit shady. The fact he did not disprove the rumor he executed 6 insurgants personally is kind of eerie to me; but then again he is probably playing mind games and trying to appear tough probably. The fact he was with the CIA is kind of moot, as the first few picks for PM were killed or refused the post.

Now conservative again:
The whole Iraq case was based on evidence from a man that was a spy for the CIA who it turns out was working for Iran. However, that is the CIA's fault for not verifying it. You cannot blame Bush for not taking time out of his busy schedule to verify every bit of intelligence.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Remember, are botched intelligence's was because Clinton signed the bill that wouldn't allow the FBI and CIA to share information, so based on this the intelligence shortcomings lay with Clintons Regime. You can hardly but the blame on Bush for the intelligence short commings. You are correct. But since you and I both know that this created a huge difficulty I can blame Bush for relying on them. If WE knew that problems existed how can you say that Bush did not know himself? You can blame Clinton all you want for creating the problem but Bush is equally to blame for using the system to base the war from it. Bush is a big boy, the people involved knew a problem existed. Yet he still based his decisions on it. Why continue to blame Clinton? Its not like he was holding a gun to Bush's head forcing him to use that information. Bush is soley responsible for making those decisions and spreading them, not Clinton.


The economy is gaining alot of ground right now. 2.5 Million jobs have been created in the last finisical year. www.foxnews.com/forbes The economy plummet would have Occurred under any President but Bush did something about it and is already gaining high ground and putting it back on its feet. I went to that link but all I found was some synopsis on various programs. While your job growth comment may be accurate, it is not the only thing used to rate economic strength, it is only one portion of it. Try these....

Despite economic recovery, wages are lagging (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001982488_wages18.html)

Once again, its a bad job growth economy (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2686976)

A growing force of non-workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/business/yourmoney/18view.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1090166244-dOmikX1bOy0WbpBBPl36yA)

Voters offer mixed signals on the economy (http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040718/BUSINESS04/407180318)

Team Bush pushes values to rally base, but it could backfire (http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=CAMPAIGN-WEEK-07-15-04&cat=PP)

Bush or Kerry? Voters view of money may decide (http://http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/news/stories/20040718/localnews/869960.html)


And I don't agree with the No Child Left Behind Act. The idea has value, but the program itself is a farce.


Enemy combatants aren't covered under the constiution. No, but US citizens are and Im unaware of any part of the Patriot Act that singles out citizens as protected. Please correct me if I am wrong.


Links are good enough, If it's proven that there was links between Saddam and Al Qaeda It will just be a Matter of time before the collaboration with 9/11 comes out. If there are any. As yet proof does not exist so building the gallows at this point is premature if even needed.


Faults by the U.N. again perhaps? regardless they were still suppose to be destroyed and it doesn't help the terrorist where trying to sell them for 3,500 a shell (Cycloserine) Please give me a link for this, I would like to read it.


I haven't seen any reports except the ones that are coming out now about the faulty CIA intelligence's. And he didn't lie he passed on what the CIA told him. What about the evidence that came out just after the war started? There are plenty of links in these threads (on AO) that go to articles regarding that. Including one I had posted above.


The Yellow Cake report came out last week. Link please, I would like to read it. I have only found articles about new findings which may prove intent to buy, but nothing in the way of Saddam actually having anything at his disposal to create WMD's. You are saying he had it. Bush continually deceived us by saying Saddam had and was capable of building an arsenal of WMD's and nuclear bombs within just a few years based on faulty evidence and even after it was proved innaccurate, continued to speak in the same vein.

Reports reopen debate on Iraq's uranium quest (http://http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001982486_uranium18.html)

He fumed about Bush and yellow cake info (http://http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9128530.htm)

The context of Bush's 16 words (http://http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2004/07/16/the_context_of_bushs_16_words/)

[Defiant Noquisi]

Second of all, Bush was not AWOL. He did not get sent over, but he was not AWOL either. The reason people think he is AWOL is because one of his training officers said he "did not remember training him." Well for God's sake people, they train thousands of troops. Do you remember the man you passed driving 20 years ago? Nope? Did not think so. There is a big blank spot in Bush's military record that is unaccounted for. Under the definition of AWOL, he should have been listed as such, on paper. Im with you on remembering things 20 years ago but this still sets up an interesting scenario. If Bush really was not AWOL and can in fact prove all of his time (which I doubt only because too much time has passed), what was that person/people sm0king that was supposed to keep track of this type of information and where are they now?

The blank spot is certainly something to scrutinize but I dont believe it should be a gigantic reason for deciding who to vote for as it is about inaccurate record keeping. If it had been me and I knew what Bush might have known and what my Uncle certainly did know, I wouldnt have wanted to go either.

[humanhybrid]

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp
The blank spot is certainly something to scrutinize but I dont believe it should be a gigantic reason for deciding who to vote for as it is about inaccurate record keeping. If it had been me and I knew what Bush might have known and what my Uncle certainly did know, I wouldnt have wanted to go either. I couldnt agree with you more DN thats what a chicken hawk is. Ya got to see though that is the way of the Bush "bad record keeping" "misrepresenting facts" Anyway for me its about people being killed unnessesarily for the benefit of profit. good day!

[DarkAce]

Stop masquerading your constant Bush hating as "I care for human rights". Have you actually done anything for human rights, or are you too busy getting your only sources of info from that information clearing house?

[humanhybrid]

Stop masquerading your constant Bush hating as "I care for human rights". Have you actually done anything for human rights, or are you too busy getting your only sources of info from that information clearing house? What does masquerading my constant Bush hating and "I care for human rights" have in common? Have you got something against human rights? You are human, are you not? Have you actually done anything for human rights? What and Who is Information Clearing House? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/who.htm good day! ps! I have questions you have answers.

[Defiant Noquisi]

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp I couldnt agree with you more DN thats what a chicken hawk is. Ya got to see though that is the way of the Bush "bad record keeping" "misrepresenting facts" Anyway for me its about people being killed unnessesarily for the benefit of profit. good day! Heres where I have a problem with accuracy. Bush did not keep his own records, the Texas and Alabama National Guard installations did. I dont fault Bush himself for the missing records. I fault him for not being forthcoming about it. I still cant say he was "AWOL" because there is no proof of him being AWOL or not. I have said it before and I was wrong to do so. It most certainly is shady, no one has come forward as an alibi and even he cant keep it straight. Even I remember basically what I was doing 20 years ago.

Another thing that was brought up and I dont know if it was in this thread. Someone posted that John Kerry admitted to war crimes. That wasnt Kerry, it was BOB KERREY.

However things played out then, his records are missing and whoever was responsible for recording and keeping those records either dropped the ball or they were removed purposely. In my mind, I can "convict" him on AWOL because the proof just isnt there. For whatever reasons he had he didnt go. Given the crooked politics behind it, (just like now) I dont blame him for not going.

I do however have a problem with this war in that the "back story" is relatively the same as Vietnam. It has been built on deceit and I will never agree with that. One would think we would have learned by now and that the American people wouldnt stand for it, but they seem to.

[humanhybrid]

George W. Bush's Military Records
Documents Obtained by Walter Robinson, Martin Heldt and other researchers through the Freedom of Information Act:
Getting into the Guard

(doc26.gif )- Contract of Service (5/27/68)

(doc23.gif )- Penalty for bad attendance (undated)

(doc24.gif ) - Statement of intent: "Flying is lifetime goal." (undated)

Press release http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/He_gets_high_PR_release.gif (3/24/1970)

Second page of the PR release http://www.cis.net~/coldfeet/afterburners.gif (3/24/70)
1972-1973

(doc7.gif ) - First transfer request; Bush applies to transfer with the 9921st in AL, a non-flying unit (5/24/72)

(doc6.gif )- Lt. Colonel Bricken's Response from AL (5/26/72)

(doc25.gif )- TXANG Recommends approval and notification if Bush is assigned to reserves. (6/??/72)

(doc5.gif ) - Air Force HQ Denver disallows transfer (date unclear)

(grounded.gif ) - Bush's suspension from flying; "Reason for Suspension" Failure to accomplish annual medical examination." (9/29/72; confirming verbal orders of 8/1/72) (James Bath is also suspended on this same document.)

(doc2.gif ) - Bush request for temporary transfer to 187th Tac Recon Grp. in AL (Bush letter, 9/5/72)

(doc11.gif )- AL ANG HQ approval for Bush to train with the 187th. (9/15 and 9/29, 1972)

(doc4.gif ) - Annual Officer Effectiveness Report part 1..."Not Observed" in all categories. (5/2/73)

(doc9.gif ) - Annual Officer Effectiveness Report part 2..."Not Observed at this unit during the period of this report." (5/2/73)

(doc17.gif ) - Special Order from Department of the Air Force, Ellington AFB, ordering Bush to perform 9 days duty in May/June 1973. (5/1/73)

(doc12.gif )- USAF requests more information on Officer Effectiveness Report; "This Officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he is no longer training in his AFSC or with his unit of assignment." (6/2?/73)

(doc28.gif )- Major Martin replies; "Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report not available for administrative reasons."
1972-1973 Days Credited:

* As received by Marty Heldt in July 2000
* As published by "George" Magazine 10/19/2000
* As released by the White House in February 2004

(Boy, that document sure has gone through the wash a few times! Wonder what's on the original microfiche?)

(doc16.gif ) - 1973 days credited. (undated, unsigned)
Getting Out of the Guard

(Doc20.gif ) - Bush request for discharge from Texas Air National Guard and Transfer to inactive reserves - Bush letter (9/5/73)

(doc27.gif ) - Request Discharge recommended for approval by Col. Killian (9/6/73)

(doc10.gif ) - Chronological Listing of Service (undated; last entry 10/1/73)

(ang22.gif ) - Bush discharge papers (10/1/73)

(Doc21.gif )- Texas Air National Guard OK for transfer to inactive reserves (10/16/73)

(doc14.gif ) - "Military Biography" of George W. Bush (unsigned, undated - no mention of Alabama)
Documents Released by the White House February 10, 2004:
Jan. 6, 1973 USAF Dental Exam Record for 1st Lt. George W. Bush

Memorandum of Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, Jr. (Ret.) (Analysis of Military Payroll Records for George W. Bush for service from 1972 to 1973) (undated memorandum)

USAF Reserve Personnel Record Card for 1st Lt. George W. Bush (Covers period from 27 May 1972 to 26 May 1973)

ARF 1st Statement of Points Earned by 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1972-1973)

ARF 2nd Statement of Points Earned by 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1973)

Military Payroll Records of 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1972-1973)

(More documents linked from USAToday.com) http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp Here you can veiw the actual transcripts

[MetalMilitia]

Faced with the possibility of being accused of a vague and undefined crime, Mrs. Martha Stewart and her broker stated that they had an agreement to sell when an agreed price was reached. The statement was not made under oath and if false does not constitute perjury.

Prosecutors claim the statement was a stratagem to cover up a stock tip, the legality of which was unclear to Stewart and her broker, and constituted a false statement that "obstructed" the investigation. Thus, even though prosecutors uncovered no evidence that Mrs. Stewart had committed a crime, they indicted her for "obstructing justice" by not telling them what they say is the truth about the stock sale ? even though what the prosecutors say is the truth about the sale does not constitute a crime.

No one knows whether Martha Stewart and her broker told the truth or not, but jurors naïvely believed the prosecutors. No one ? not jury, judge, nor prosecutor ? had enough sense or decency to know that it made no difference one way or the other. No one can be guilty of covering up a noncrime.

Relevence

Meanwhile the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has released its report, which states that the information used by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Powell to justify the invasion of Iraq was incorrect. Everything Powell told the UN and Bush told the American people was wrong. A war with tens of thousands of casualties was started, if not on the basis of massive outright lies, on the basis of massive orchestrated misinformation.

The deception was so successful that 45% of Americans purport to still believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to Osama bin Laden.

The senators say the invasion was unjustified, but no person is to blame ? only "the process." The intelligence information was not correctly collected, analyzed, processed, or reported. Thus, everything got fuddled up and our incompetent government confused myth with reality.

The buck stops nowhere. No one is to be held accountable for a disastrous blunder that has destroyed tens of thousands of people and a half century of US foreign policy, wasted $200 billion dollars, and made Americans unsafe for decades to come.

If we apply the "process is guilty" standard to Mrs. Stewart that is applied to our government leaders, even if she told a lie the fault lies in the vagueness of the insider trading offense. Not knowing what the offense is, people try to defend against being accused of it. Mrs. Stewart is not guilty. The process of the law is guilty for not defining the offense known as insider trading. Judges and jurors are guilty for allowing prosecutors to use vague laws and regulations to indict people.

Are the American people going to reelect a government that prosecutes citizens for noncrimes while excusing itself of possible war crimes?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts58.html

How much sense does it make when you put it into those terms?

-MM- :crs:

[Defiant Noquisi]

Are the American people going to reelect a government that prosecutes citizens for noncrimes while excusing itself of possible war crimes?

How much sense does it make when you put it into those terms? It makes no sense whatsoever. However, the real question is whether or not the American people will take the blinders off and actually give a damn. And I get argument when I say that the American people are just as much to blame for what the government gets away with. Thats a perfect example of why. They would rather kick back in the recliner and enjoy the sensationalism rather than make any kind of attempt to do something about it.

[MetalMilitia]

Yellow Cake. look it up.

Bush's SOTU said the UK had learned Iraq sought uranium ore from Niger. The "evidence" the US had for this was a set of documents. Those documents were deemed "suspicious" by the CIA, and sent to the IAEA, who found them to be flat-out (and poorly done) forgeries.

Tony Blair has always said he had "separate intelligence" backing up the Niger claims; a written report, and that the UK never had nor ever saw the forged documents.

The Butler report says:


"We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger.

Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries.

The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

In other words, the Butler report is saying "whatever the deal was with those forgeries, it doesn't affect our judgment because we didn't have the forgeries."

But that's not actually the truth. No, the UK didn't have the actual forged documents...what they had was a written summary...and guess what that written summary is based on... the forged documents - duh.


The Prime Minister's claim - which formed a key element in his justification for the invasion - was subsequently rejected by the US government, which concluded it was based on forged documents.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1248270,00.html

Who forged the documents is what I would like to know.

-MM- :crs: