Why people will vote for Bush

I think I'm going to add this one to my signature. It's a stunningly perfect snapshot of why Bush will win this election; because our country is chock-full of people like this who "think they heard" about something and taking it as fact. I'll stop short of calling you a moron. That's keholmes' territory.

Originally posted by XxaudioholicxX

#3. As far as a Saddam link to Bin Laden. Who knows for sure, but I think I heard about documents or findings that has linked them together.

Thanks for this. In return allow me to present you with a couple of links. Who knows for sure? It seems that the Bush Administration might...

9/11 commission says "No credible evidence"
www.cnn.com...

Bush himself:
news.bbc.co.uk...

But hey, there MUST have been a link between al Qaeda and Saddam, right? I mean, they're all Arabs, right?

Um, no. Actually Saddam ran one of the only SECULAR regimes in the middle east and was considered an infidel by religious fundamentalists that support islamic terrorism. Saddam and Osama were natural (if not obvious) enemies.

www.commondreams.org...

Please educate yourself. There is nothing in this country more dangerous than the uninformed voter.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc

Thanks for proving my point.

So, your point is when people are wrong they are evil?

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
No, I'm saying that if you don't hold Bush accountable for all of his mistakes then you are ignorant of the facts, evil, or simply unwilling to allow yourself to believe that you've been lied to. I'm not asking you to believe in conspiracy theories, just stop telling me he didn't lie to us. He did, on many, many occasions.

Lets start by you telling me exactly what lies has Bush told? Then we can go from there.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Right, all those Republican senators who just came out and said this war was a mistake (see above) and the Army War College and the Retired Generals who were always against this war have been watching too many damn movies!

Were there some people that thought it was impossible to have a "democratic form of government in Iraq?" Yes there were, and it is possible they were right, but as i have shown in other threads even the previous administration was already working on ousting Saddam by force if he didn't agree to let the weapons inspectors unrestricted access.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Which lies did Michael Moore tell? Which of the sources that I cited have been spoon fed to me? USA Today, maybe. The AP? Army War College? The United States Congress? Are they all liars, too? *shudder*

Moore's lies, ok lets start by naming a few of them. This is what i remember at this moment.

First, according to him Iraq was a happy place before the war, which if you read reports from the UN and other organizations it was a lie and hundreds of thousands of people have died under Saddam's rule, including his own people. Tie to this that he never mentions that in iraq 500,000 children under the age of 5 died because of the UN sanctions against Iraq which would have happened again if we had not gone to war with Iraq and more sanctions would most probably have been put in place by the UN.

Second, he mentioned that those people who died in the 2001 flights were all cowards, "scarely cats" he obviously did not know that in flight 93 people fought the terrorists and it was why it went down. Not only that but you have to be a moron to give fault, accuse and insult innocent people who died because of terrorists.

Third, Moore said that Bush was the one who gave the green light to the Bin Laden family to leave the US, which according to Clark this was not so, since it was Clark himself who told the Bin Ladens it was better if they left the country and he made all the arragements.

Fourth, he says he is looking out for the working people, yet he has bashed and insulted the working class, as an example in Britain he did this because he wasn't getting enough money for his speech..and not to mention he labels all Americans as "stupid and ignorants" among other things obviously not knowing there is diversity in America and different levels of education.

Fifth in "Bowling for Columbine" Moore makes the public believe that in a certain bank in the states 9can't recall the name of state or bank from memory) you can come out of the bank with a gun if you open an account with them, which is an outright lie as you have to go through the background check as if you were going to buy a gun.

About the other sources you mentioned, you have to be specific, with links, and point to the information they are giving, then we can take it from there.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I actually DO want to listen to you. You're obviously suggesting that the Iraq war would have happened no matter what, right? Well, I'm waiting to hear your justification for that absolutely ridiculous statement starting......now.

I have already posted the proof for this in other threads, quoting democrats including the former democratic president Clinton. Let me give you those links again, and at the same time, since you want more, let me make some more quotes in here....

Link. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Excerpt from above link.

Tuesday February 17, 1998
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
...............
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.
...............
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
(Senate - October 09, 1998)

HON. CARL LEVIN

in the Senate

October 9, 1998

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `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.'
.............
Mr. President, UNSCOM has sought to carry out its responsibilities in as expeditious and effective way as possible. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler and his teams, however, have been confronted with Iraqi obstacles, lack of cooperation and lies. As UNSCOM has noted in its own document entitled `UNSCOM Main Achievements': `UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of those programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.'
..........
Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.
...........
Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Excerpted from.
www.iraqwatch.org...

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Actually, none of the world said that about Saddam. They wanted inspectors and UN action and a MULTILATERAL force if needed. I noticed you decided to throw in the BIG LIE about Saddam helping Al Qaeda again, too. Is there no hope that you might listen to your own president on this issue:

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to September the 11th" -George W Bush

But maybe you do. I'm waiting.

Let me give you some quotes from democrats.

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

................
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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Excerpted from.
clinton.senate.gov...

If you need more quotes let me know.

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

I really dont know what to say....
I'm just depressed about the whole thing.
Bush will win despite everything...
Doesent mean Im not going to vote for Kerry though.
I mean where there's life there's hope right?
I just don't see whats so special about bush that makes him the only choice to fight terrorism. I don't see how any of the policies he has enacted have increased my safety.
By the way my opinion was not "spoonfed" to me by the "libera', "hollywood" media. I don't see how withdrawing from an international environmental treaty and replacing it's guidelines with a more business friendly Clear Skies initiative helps me at all. I don't see how ignoring scientific opinion and consensus isa good thing.
I don't believe in "trickle down" economics and find its whole premise rather dubious.
I don't see how invading Iraq when we still havent finished with Afghanistan has helped America at all couldnt we "take the fight to the terrorists" there?
Finally if you must use 911 and New York as a backdrop in your campaign it would be nice if you wouldnt be so stingy with the rebuilding money and anti-terror funding.

Oppodeldoc,

Thanks for the reply. And this is a stunningly perfect snapshot of why Kerry won�t win. And I will also stop short of calling YOU a moron as well as you had obviously misread my post. Like I said in my last post �who knows for sure� meaning I do not and just because I heard of documents does not mean I think they are factual, else I would of stated that. Also, I just want to clarify that I don�t think Saddam had part in the 9/11 attacks as you generously provide links supporting this and as you obviously �thought� I said something I didn�t. Nowhere did I say that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks. I think it is possible that he has or his administration at least has had connections with Bin Laden and his group. I simply said I think I heard of documents connecting these two groups and at the time I was writing my post I didn�t have sources, which being new to this forum I see I better come well equipped with information, but since you inquired about my �thinking I heard� something, which I did, here are some links that support what �I thought I heard� (there are many more). And don�t think I by any means think of these as cold hard facts, but as I analyze articles like these, I come closer to the conclusion that there is a high probability that there has been talks between Saddam and his people and Bin Laden and his.

So I will end as you�. Please educate yourself. There is nothing in this country more dangerous than the uninformed voter�.
I would like to add something to that statement that is equally as dangerous, people misreading or twisting words into something that was never said�..
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html

www.cbc.ca...

www.tennessean.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by boogyman

I just don't see whats so special about bush that makes him the only choice to fight terrorism. I don't see how any of the policies he has enacted have increased my safety.

Bush stands by his word, which is something Kerry does not seem to understand. How can people trust someone that won't state their opinion but changes it according to the crowd he is in?

Last Friday, President Bush challenged Sen. John Kerry: "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq." On Monday, pressed by a reporter to answer Bush, Kerry said, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Bush argues that this is yet another Kerry flip-flop and that Kerry now endorses Bush's war. At a campaign rally on Tuesday, Bush asserted,

My opponent has found a new nuance. He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpile of weapons we believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Excerpted from.
slate.msn.com...

Kerry's stance on the Patriot Act.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3162 )
Vote Number: 313 Vote Date: October 25, 2001, 01:54 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 3162 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 )
Measure Title: A bill to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
.........
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
.........

Excerpted from.
www.senate.gov...

"We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night," Kerry huffs. "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."

Excerpted from.
www.nationalreview.com...

In the above link you can find more on Kerry's chance of mind in policies.

He has also stated things like if he was president he wouldn't send our troops without supplies and ammunition, yet he voted against sending funds to help our trooops in Iraq get ammunition and other needed supplies.

Originally posted by boogyman
By the way my opinion was not "spoonfed" to me by the "libera', "hollywood" media. I don't see how withdrawing from an international environmental treaty and replacing it's guidelines with a more business friendly Clear Skies initiative helps me at all. I don't see how ignoring scientific opinion and consensus isa good thing.
I don't believe in "trickle down" economics and find its whole premise rather dubious.

The environmental issue is one of the topics I don't agree with the Bush administration, but at least i know that we can voice our opinions and "if enough people did so properly, this administration would have to change the policies dealing with the environment.

Originally posted by boogyman
I don't see how invading Iraq when we still havent finished with Afghanistan has helped America at all couldnt we "take the fight to the terrorists" there?
Finally if you must use 911 and New York as a backdrop in your campaign it would be nice if you wouldnt be so stingy with the rebuilding money and anti-terror funding.

I don't understand completely what you are saying in the above quote...we did take the fight to the terrorists/radicals' turf.

You would also have to be more specific with the; "you wouldn't be so stingy with the rebuilding money and anti-terror funding."

---edited to correct spelling error---

[edit on 22-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Could you translate this? My hick is a little rusty...

That's cool. This guy in my office who went to school in a trailer park tells me you just said I was "dumber n' the Monday paper on a Friday," whatever that means.

I'm disappointed that you're spending the time simply to insult me with stuff that isn't even funny. Try harder or don't try at all.
�����

Sorry it was so hard for you to understand�.I will type slower for you next time so that you don�t get lost. Or was it the big words thrown in like �cheerio.� maybe you can ask your mommy to transfer you into that school in the trailer park.

The following excerpts come from the "Kerry On Iraq Documentary," an interview done by Don Imus, a Radio Host.

Kerry On Iraq Poll
Senator Kerry�s position continues to evolve at varying speeds. In an interview with Don Imus this week, it sounded like Senator Kerry was debating Howard Dean but it turns out Senator Kerry was the only guest on the show.

Even Imus was confused. After the interview Imus said, "I asked him a number of questions about Iraq and I can't tell you what he said."

The following is the written interview

Kerry Interview On "Imus In The Morning"

IMUS: "Well he's urging you to admit the war was a mistake and then start attacking these people."

KERRY: "Well I think the war ..."

IMUS: "Why can't you do that?"

KERRY: "But I do. It's exactly what I am doing. I think the war ... I said it a hundred times, I think it was a huge mistake for the President to go to war the way he did. I've said that a dozen times. I mean, the fact is that I ..."

IMUS: "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?"

KERRY: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The President chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that."

Excerpted from.
www.kerryoniraq.com...

You can find the audio file of the above interview at the above link, or you can Click Here


[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Let's see what Kerry's stance is on the environment and what he has done to help it.

John Kerry's car trouble

The Republicans have done it again when it comes to Sen. John Kerry's flip-flopping statements on owning an SUV. In the latest installment, the GOP has found video of Kerry telling environmentally conscious New Hampshire voters that he sold his gas guzzlers to buy fuel-efficient autos and just one month later, in Michigan car country, giving a long list of big-engine vehicles he owns�including two SUVs, one imported.

Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party chairman, is to unveil them tonight during a speech in Sheldon, Iowa. His point: Kerry says whatever he thinks voters want to hear. It's the latest twist in the SUV saga. First Kerry denied having one; then he said it was his wife's. Now he's saying he sold his gas hogs only to brag a month later about owning a "big Suburban."

In the new video, he's asked at a New Hampshire rally what he's done to reduce the dependency on oil. Says Kerry, "I sold my gas guzzler and got a van and downgraded, that's what I did personally, in my own life. Also got an economical car in Washington and so forth so that I was trying to live up to that standard."

But in the second video, shot a month later in Michigan, he lists his autos: "I own a Dodge 600 that I've had for about 20 years; I own a Chrysler 300M; we have a Chrysler van, a minivan; a Chrysler PT Cruiser (I guess Chrysler is making out here); a Suburban Chevy�big Suburban�and she has a Land Rover Defender."

Excerpted from.
www.usnews.com...

What I mean is why was it necessary to open up another unneccessary front to "take the fight to the terrorists" when we alrkeady had a perfectly good one. Now instead of one third world country to rebuild we have two...

Why is it that Bismarck North Dakota is entitled to the same amount of ffunding for antiterrorism as New York city?

Plus defence of marriage is not as important as defence of america in my opinion.

Originally posted by azheat
All of you knuckleheads seem to think you know what your talking about. We, Americans, are only told 1/3 of whats really going on behind closed doors. If you knew what really was going on, you would crap in your undies. There is so much more going on that reading all of the idiotic comments of people who are clearly partisan in their thinking makes me laugh. To quote a movie "...you cant handle the truth". The fact is, we had to go into IRAQ...it was a message. You dummies dont even know that we are killing MUSLIM RADICALS in over a 10 to 1 ratio. Remember this...and you all forget, they attacked us (9/11 sept). So before all of you bleeding heart liberals start to make the arguement that its our fault, we shouldnt have attacked. THEY started this war when they killed over 2900 americans in NY. We are not killing IRAQI's, we are killing MUSLIM EXTREMISTS in Iraq. So, it's kill them there or kill them here. Personally, I prefer that this war is fought over there. I have close friends that are in Iraq today and they tell me that it's not as bad as we think. They would rather fight this war in Iraq and not at home. We are in a critical time in our countrys history and we need a leader who is going to make a decision and stick to it. If that aint Bush, then who? Kerry? Give me a break. If all we had to worry about were Health Ins, Higher Pay, Social programs for the weak, ignorant and the lazy...then MAYBE he's the man. But for this time...It's BUSH...

Thanks m8, I was wondering if they would add the choice that

(8) He is the best damn candidate for the job!
(9) He means what he says and says what he means
(10) He does not lead by reading what the polls say when he takes his morning dump!
(11) He wife is much more "acceptable" as a first lady.
(12) Because the folks IN tyhe military support him by a 7-1 ratio!
(13) Because is you liberal folks when, we are in for a bad decade maybe more

Quoteppodeldoc
"But hey, there MUST have been a link between al Qaeda and Saddam, right? I mean, they're all Arabs, right?

Um, no. Actually Saddam ran one of the only SECULAR regimes in the middle east and was considered an infidel by religious fundamentalists that support islamic terrorism. Saddam and Osama were natural (if not obvious) enemies."

XxaudioholicxX:"I think you are the one who should educate yourself. I present to you in return for your comments above this":

Quote from: www.cnn.com...
"Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Full story)

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In a October 2002 speech he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty contributed to this report."

Statement:

"The enemy of your enemy is your friend"

Has anyone asked themselves what Bush and the CIA and the Russians etc etc etc know? Why can they NOT go public with it? It is because the "source" is killed.

Saddam and Osama did not like each other, Saddam was NOT a religous man at all, very secular indeed. BUT he hated ths the US and so did Osama.


Why would they cooperate? Isnt it obvious? What did Saddam have to loose? he thought the US would not attack, he knew the French and Germans had his back......it is a dangerous game folks.

XxaudioholicxX,

Some good points. The Taliban mihgt not have been the sole authority for 9-11, but they definately had an understanding that Bin Laden was up to something and had to give some approval knowing that their "government" was on the line. Because of this we should have kept our eye on the ball and killed them all.

By doing this we would have tore up their communications infrastucture, intelligence apparatus, etc. With these objectives being completed more thoroughly, I would like to think this would make Iraq less able to support terrorism. With no fly zones in the north and south of Iraq this would be even harder.

If this is a true war on on terrorism we should have gone after the country that fundamental islamicist began in. Iran. This country now has the capability to produce nukes and I believe they already have missles that can reach Isreal. They are also thumbing their nose at us and the U.N. (big joke), but because of our troops spread out all over the place we would have a somewhat limited response if they did anything.

As far as Powell goes, his testimony in the U.N. was trying to get help. His experience in military matters is beyond reproach. With Rummy forsaking the "Powell Doctrine" he has left more terrorists in Iraq than before the war.

Originally posted by XxaudioholicxX

XxaudioholicxX:"I think you are the one who should educate yourself. I present to you in return for your comments above this":

Quote from: www.cnn.com...
"Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

I love this link. It is the smoking gun! Putin said Saddam was planning terrorist attacks, so OF COURSE we should have invaded him! Funny how we never heard this from Powell or Rumsfield or Bush as justification for going to war. Even if we had, where is there any evidence of this? I guess you're going to take one corrupt leader's word for it, just as you'll take OUR corrupt leader's word for anything. Look what else Putin said (did you read this link or just copy it from holmes' signature?)

"However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks."

So we're back where we started. I ask you for your "educated" opinion on this point. How was Saddam going to carry out these attacks? With his Weapons of Mass Destruction? Maybe he was going to sponsor terrorist attacks by flying airplanes into buildings. Maybe he was going to T.P. the White House!

You seem to think that, simply because Putin says so, Iraq had it in for us, but this is common knowledge. In actuality, you can look all over the Middle East and find regimes who hate America. Any one of these nations (which we don't have sanctions on and which actually have armies and WMD) could be planning attacks right now. Maybe the real debate is whether invading Iraq has increased their resolve to do so. As you so eloquently put it, "Who knows for sure?" We'll find out one of these days, I fear.

By the way, I like this link. It says the Bush administration appeared "Surprised" when that report came out. I wonder why? Here are some suggestions...

A State Department official told Reuters that "everyone is scratching their heads" about Putin's remarks.

Putin's statement Friday "may have come as a result of a concrete agreement with the Bush administration," said Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow office of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information. "But we might not know for a while what the agreement was."

And here, the Administration just sounds totally out of touch (surprise):

Speaking with reporters at a roundtable Friday, Secretary of State Collin Powell was equally vague. "Yeah, I don't - I'm not familiar with what the Russians might have given us, but I'd just have to yield to my friends in the intelligence community," he said. "Those sorts of things usually come from service to service, and I just haven't had a chance this afternoon to see what the CIA is saying about it."

Whole story:

www.sptimes.ru...

Also, from the NYT, a little education about Al Qaeda-Iraq ties and the credibility of who you've been listening to. This Administration really thinks that if you say it enough times, everyone will believe it regardless of lack of proof. Seems to be working on you.

from the NYT, June 19, 2004

From a NYT editorial, June 19, 2004:

When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.

Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.

Before the war, Mr. Bush spoke of far more than vague "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said Iraq had provided Al Qaeda with weapons training, bomb-making expertise and a base in Iraq. On Feb. 8, 2003, Mr. Bush said that "an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases." The 9/11 panel's report, as well as news articles, indicate that these things never happened.

Mr. Cheney said yesterday that the "evidence is overwhelming" of an Iraq-Qaeda axis and that there had been a "whole series of high-level contacts" between them. The 9/11 panel said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan in the early 1990's, meeting with Osama bin Laden once in 1994. It said Osama bin Laden had asked for "space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." The panel cited reports of further contacts after Osama bin Laden returned to Afghanistan in 1996, but said there was no working relationship. As far as the public record is concerned, then, Mr. Cheney's "longstanding ties" amount to one confirmed meeting, after which the Iraq government did not help Al Qaeda. By those standards, the United States has longstanding ties to North Korea.

Mr. Bush has also used a terrorist named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Bush used to refer to Mr. Zarqawi as a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner" who was in Baghdad working with the Iraqi government. But the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime, nor under the direction of Al Qaeda.

When it comes to 9/11, someone in the Bush administration has indeed drawn the connection to Iraq: the vice president. Mr. Cheney has repeatedly referred to reports that Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent. He told Tim Russert of NBC on Dec. 9, 2001, that this report has "been pretty well confirmed." If so, no one seems to have informed the C.I.A., the Czech government or the 9/11 commission, which said it did not appear to be true. Yet Mr. Cheney cited it, again, on Thursday night on CNBC.

Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney's adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to "tiptoe through the land mines of what's sayable and not sayable" to the public, but that "his job is to connect the dots."

The message, if we hear it properly, is that when it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there's more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Could you translate this? My hick is a little rusty...
That's cool. This guy in my office who went to school in a trailer park tells me you just said I was "dumber n' the Monday paper on a Friday," whatever that means.
I'm disappointed that you're spending the time simply to insult me with stuff that isn't even funny. Try harder or don't try at all.
�����

Sorry it was so hard for you to understand�.I will type slower for you next time so that you don�t get lost. Or was it the big words thrown in like �cheerio.� maybe you can ask your mommy to transfer you into that school in the trailer park.

keholmes,
I've been reading the pro's and con's of people's choices for Commander in Chief and your reply to oppodeldoc has got me rolling in the floor
Keep it up! C-H-E-E-R-I-OMy sides are splitting!

[edit on 22/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by Muaddib
So, your point is when people are wrong they are evil?

No, my point is that people such as you have the obedient non-questioning wide-eyed opinion of your president that calls to mind the way a 3 year old thinks of his/her parents. "Mommy wouldn't lie to me." Then when they do, and you ADMITTED as much, you don't hold them accountable because you don't want to believe they are evil. Fine. I'm done trying to convince you. You know what I wrote.

Lets start by you telling me exactly what lies has Bush told? Then we can go from there.

I'll just allow you to continue thinking Bush hasn't lied. About anything. I actually can't think of a single major issue that he HASN'T lied about, from the reasons for War in Iraq (he now lies and says we went to liberate the Iraqi people) to the cost of the war, repeatedly, to withholding information about his energy task force, to his national guard service, to... What's the point of this? If you really think he hasn't lied about anything you are proving my point (see above).

Were there some people that thought it was impossible to have a "democratic form of government in Iraq?" Yes there were, and it is possible they were right, but as i have shown in other threads even the previous administration was already working on ousting Saddam by force if he didn't agree to let the weapons inspectors unrestricted access.

And he actually did allow them unrestricted access. They ran all over the country. Your president kicked them out despite pleas from the entire international community to allow them to keep working. I was all for invading if he didn't allow the inspectors access. But he did, and Bush invaded anyway without approval from the U.N. Again, see my first point.

But wait, this part of your response is my favorite:

Moore's lies, ok lets start by naming a few of them. This is what i remember at this moment.

First, according to him Iraq was a happy place before the war...

Since I'm pretty certain you never saw the movie, I'll let you have a pass on this one. He never claimed any such thing, but many conservatives have pointed to a minute or so montage in which he shows people playing and living their lives normally in Bagdad hours before the bombing started. He didn't comment on the footage or claim anything in the movie, he simply contrasted the life people were living before the bombing started with the Shock and Awe of the following evening. It was very effective, but not a lie. The footage wasn't faked. Watch the movie, it might teach you a couple things. Funny how you haven't said any of the allegations against Bush in that movie were a lie. Hmmm...

Tie to this that he never mentions that in iraq 500,000 children under the age of 5 died because of the UN sanctions against Iraq which would have happened again if we had not gone to war with Iraq and more sanctions would most probably have been put in place by the UN.

How is this a lie? Moore is definitely way left and a manipulative filmmaker, but he didn't present us with facts that aren't true. He didn't distort the facts of the war, and in fact you haven't yet pointed out anything he did that was a lie. Let's see, what about this:

Second, he mentioned that those people who died in the 2001 flights were all cowards, "scarely cats" he obviously did not know that in flight 93 people fought the terrorists and it was why it went down.

You really need to do some research. First, even if he said this at a press conference, it isn't a lie. He didn't LIE, he would have been expressing an opinion. Second, he said this ON STAGE during a SATIRE he was performing. Like Bush's "Looking for WMDs in the Oval Office" piece. Funny stuff, right?

Third, Moore said that Bush was the one who gave the green light to the Bin Laden family to leave the US, which according to Clark this was not so, since it was Clark himself who told the Bin Ladens it was better if they left the country and he made all the arragements.

Again, watch the movie. He only says that someone high up had to have authorized it. If you don't think Bush or Cheney had anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself. (see point number one)

Fourth, he says he is looking out for the working people, yet he has bashed and insulted the working class, blah blah effing blah...

Have you seen "Roger and Me?" Moore really sticks it to the working people in that one. Also, none of what you claim he said are LIES. Please point out to me how any of his tirades, whether they happened or not, are LIES. (Also, your claim that he yelled at the British people comes from one woman's report that he was on stage, performing a SATIRE that was SOLD OUT and he called the 9/11 victims "scaredy cats" and berated them for not paying him enough. Do you really think he was serious? You've been had. He was ON STAGE.

Fifth in "Bowling for Columbine" Moore makes the public believe that in a certain bank in the states 9can't recall the name of state or bank from memory) you can come out of the bank with a gun if you open an account with them, which is an outright lie as you have to go through the background check as if you were going to buy a gun.

Actually, he did go through a background check in that movie. Watch it again.

...a bunch of stuff about War in Iraq and the UN...

If you need more quotes let me know.

Nope. You did an excellent job of proving my original beef with the entire war, which was that regardless of any threat to us that Bush amplified and distorted, all of what you quote is very specific about allowing the UN to have a shot first. They didn't get it. That is a fact. Bush himself told them to leave before their work was done. Hans Blix, the lead inspector, knew a lot more about Iraqi weapons capability than the entire United States intelligence community, but they pulled him out early (he protested loudly and daily) and that is why Bush's actions are criminal. Even to the U.N.

You sound as if you're having doubts, and you're running out of Fox News propaganda to support your pitiful assertions. Just admit that you're wrong, and I promise that those of us who tell the truth will welcome you with open arms. We won't even say "I told you so."

I have one for ya OPPODELDOC,
Why did Moore, after he showed how many murders there are in the U.S. per year compared to other countries, go to Charlton Heston's house and give him a hard time, when he just got done saying that Canada has as many guns per person as the U.S. with one of the lowest counts of murders per year in the world?

Originally posted by livenlearn
I have one for ya OPPODELDOC,
Why did Moore, after he showed how many murders there are in the U.S. per year compared to other countries, go to Charlton Heston's house and give him a hard time, when he just got done saying that Canada has as many guns per person as the U.S. with one of the lowest counts of murders per year in the world?

Not sure if I understand the point of this question, but here's what I think...

"Columbine" was a really amazing documentary, and for what it's worth, I actually think it's pretty ambiguous what you're supposed to get out of it so this is just my opinion. To answer your question, the entire comparison to Canada was there to show that even though Canadians actually have more guns per person or household (can't remember which one at the moment) than Americans, they don't use their guns to commit crimes the way we do.

Now, it's up to the viewer to figure out why that might be, but the Charlton Heston piece was, I thought, a great little suggestion of what this is all about. After all, the documentary is about American gun control or lack thereof. After showing that many Canadians actually leave their front doors unlocked all the time, he goes to Charlton Heston's compound to meet with him. He's the President of the NRA and the focus of a horrible moment in that organization's history, when he led a rally very near the site of the recent death of a young girl because of careless gun use. So, I thought it was very effective to see Heston with his guard down, without his gun buddies cheering for him and without a gun in his hand completely unable to answer Moore's questions. He just gets up and walks away.

Was it manipulative on Moore's part? Of course. That's his gig. I actually wish the left had more guys like him, since the conservatives have been manipulating public opinion more effectively for decades. But the reason conservatives hate Moore is because he DOESN'T lie and they are seriously afraid that he's right. They take potshots at him and manufacture stories about him calling 9/11 victims scaredy cats because they can't attack his work. I haven't seen a single person of any political background come up with any solid evidence to discredit anything that Michael Moore has done other than to point out minor flaws in his execution (he's a filmmaker, and he's not perfect). They simply call him a liar and without even seeing his movie, the Bushies go "YEAH! HE'S A LIAR!" Where are all these lies?

Thanks for answering. Although I'm going to disagree with you. He had no business at Charlton Heston's, the problem isn't the NRA, which he was too stupid to realize he proved when he mentioned Canada's stats. It's not that I think Moore is lying, I just think he know's not what he does. I would have answered his question this way:
America is where dreams come true, it's also where they die or are never an option for many people at all, not Canada, not Germany, not Russia, etc... This, of course, depends on what you may believe is a dream. Here, you're a loser in most peoples eyes if you work at McDonalds, where as in Canada you're not judged that way so harshly. Here, if you're not beautiful, you're not wanted by most. I can go on and on. People lose hope here or never have a chance to even have it. Some people lose everything. When that happens, people nut up, people don't care, people lose hope, people sometimes kill. This has nothing to do with the NRA. He should address the root of the problems he's talking about.

Originally posted by livenlearn
Thanks for answering. Although I'm going to disagree with you. He had no business at Charlton Heston's, the problem isn't the NRA, which he was too stupid to realize he proved when he mentioned Canada's stats. It's not that I think Moore is lying, I just think he know's not what he does. I would have answered his question this way:

You demonstrate a lot of intelligence in your assertion here (and following) but I honestly think you've misconstrued Moore's intent with "Columbine." See below...

America is where dreams come true, it's also where they die or are never an option for many people at all, not Canada, not Germany, not Russia, etc... This, of course, depends on what you may believe is a dream. Here, you're a loser in most peoples eyes if you work at McDonalds, where as in Canada you're not judged that way so harshly. Here, if you're not beautiful, you're not wanted by most. I can go on and on. People lose hope here or never have a chance to even have it. Some people lose everything. When that happens, people nut up, people don't care, people lose hope, people sometimes kill.

I actually agree with you 100 percent. This is one of the most intelligent viewings of that movie that I've heard. I'm glad you got that out of it.

This has nothing to do with the NRA. He should address the root of the problems he's talking about.

I haven't seen the movie in months, but I seem to remember thinking that Moore's point (this is my opinion, of course) was that America's problem ISN'T with the NRA (he's a member!), with gun control, violent video games, etc. I think he was saying our problem is that we live in a society of fear, of losing all the things you point to above. The Charlton Heston thing was more of an aside because I think he wanted to get back at him, but I think that Moore aknowledges several times that our problem is not with special interests or gun nuts. It is almost an affirmation that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." People like Charlton Heston, that is.

I guess we're pretty off topic, but it is nice to get a well thought-out reply that isn't just a lame attempt to insult me. I was beginning to get a little skeptical about the folks on this site...