It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Waiting2awake
I have often wondered if some of the Bush supporters here were actually Bots, because regardless of the issue their firm denial of everything that would shed Bush in some bad light was instantly dissmissed. Although I am sure many of them would claim the same of the other side
Originally posted by half_minded
I, however, like to take the fence down and see everything clearly.
Originally posted by niteboy82 Calling them bots doesn't help much either. What are we doing to bring people together, by removing their humanity?
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm here. I support Bush and the administration. I'm rational enough to know that everything has not gone as planned, but in the wake of 9/11, when most politicians would have been looking at the polls to see what to do next, GW took the bull by the horns and took the war to the enemy and he's had the cajones to stay the course when all the effete snobs have screamed, "Cut and Run!"
We have a discussion of loyalty over at Social Issues. It's tough to be loyal in the hard times, but some Americans do so.
But, I guess if you believe that Bush sponsored and carried out the 9/11 attacks, loyalty is probably a very slippery concept, as is reality.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm here. I support Bush and the administration. I'm rational enough to know that everything has not gone as planned,
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
in the wake of 9/11, when most politicians would have been looking at the polls to see what to do next, GW took the bull by the horns and took the war to the enemy and he's had the cajones to stay the course
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
But, I guess if you believe that Bush sponsored and carried out the 9/11 attacks, loyalty is probably a very slippery concept, as is reality.
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.
[...]
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.
[...]
By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.
[...]
President Kennedy faced a similar difficult challenge in the days of the Cuban missile crisis. He decided not to proceed, I might add, preemptively. He decided to show the evidence and proceeded through the international institutions. He said at the time:
"The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are... The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."
So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.
I yield the floor.
John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War
In an interview after the speech, Kerry said he has learned from the mistakes of his campaign, including his inability to articulate an easily understood position on the war. Now, drawing on his experience as a Vietnam-veteran-turned-war-critic in the early 1970s, he is making clear that he is a full-throated opponent of the Iraq war.
"It was right to dissent from a war in 1971 that was wrong and could not be won," Kerry said in his speech. "And now, in 2006, it is both a right and an obligation for Americans to stand up to a president who is wrong today, [and] dissent from policies that are wrong today, and end a war in Iraq that weakens the nation each and every day we are in it."
www.boston.com
Originally posted by half_minded
So let me get this straight. All the people who thought that US government is actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'help' the people, whr are you now?
US invaded Iraq saying that it MIGHT have WMDs and it MIGHT be a threat to US. Also invaded afghanistan because AQ was behind 9/11.
Makes you wonder why US has not invaded NK. Because according to logic, NK should have been invaded and Kim Jong Il should have been put out of power long before he was even allowed to make nuclear weapons, let alone test them and threaten the US of using them.
Both KJI (Kim) and Saddam are considered mad men capable of attacking US. Then why hasn't US taken the same actions towards North Korea. Give me an answer.
I never believed Bush's BS anyway and now it is more than clear to me what the true agenda of his administration was. Why the 'war on terror'?
If Bush was concerned about the american public even one bit then KJI should have been dealt with exactly the same way as Saddam.
On top of this, the reasons for attacking Iraq were based on lies which is now a widely known fact. Now, where is the US 'intelligence'? regardless of whether US knew about Kim's plans or not, why hasn't been NK attacked by US. Why were afghanistan and iraq attacked so fast and based on reasons which were either questionable or downright lies.
Now I ask all the Bush supporters and people who believe that Al-Qaida attacked US on 9/11, what answer do you have for this?
I only see two reasons. Either US is scared of the country that can actually fight back, or it is not interested in the public interest because NK does not have oil.
In any case, does not look too good for the US and Bush administration and is a slap on the faces of all the people who blindly follow Bush and support this 'war on terror' which is actually aimed at control of middle east and the oil.
Originally posted by Griff
Sorry bud, but you didn't answer any of the OP's questions. Nowhere in your post did you mention NK?