Did anyone hear about that?

It's the Democrat's fault. They've failed to stop the war. Isn't that why the people voted for them? To end the war?

Every American soldier that has died since Pelosi took the Speaker's gavel is on the head of the Democrats.

It was 28 and 56 this month so far. Sucks. BTW there is only one person at whom's door this clusterfu*k can be laid at and that is George Bush's.

It was 28 and 56 this month so far. Sucks. BTW there is only one person at whom's door this clusterfu*k can be laid at and that is George Bush's.

I believe a majority of democrats voted for this war also.......though you dems seem to forget that:rolleyes: ........so when you run out to vote for Hiltery in 08....remember she voted and has supported this war from the get go (no matter how many lies she tells to to say otherwise).....yet you guys only want to bash Bush when your hands are just as dirty........

I believe a majority of democrats voted for this war also.......though you dems seem to forget that:rolleyes: ........so when you run out to vote for Hiltery in 08....remember she voted and has supported this war from the get go (no matter how many lies she tells to to say otherwise).....yet you guys only want to bash Bush when your hands are just as dirty........

Hey skytrooper: Lets play --

Name that famous historical document!

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Oh, and its awesome that you want to blame the democrats for trusting the president, while you continue to appearintly trust him as you argue against the evil dems?

I dont know. My brain cant process logic that shitty.

It's the Democrat's fault. They've failed to stop the war. Isn't that why the people voted for them? To end the war?

... Are you trying to be sarcastic? I mean, its obvious what you're doing, but you're doing it about 5 months to soon to even make sense. No one expects the democrats to fix this problem after having spent barely weeks in office. Bush has had nearly 5 years, and a republican controlled congress, and the situation was on a never ending downward spiral day after day (despite 'Mission Accomplished' and the Insurgency now in the third year of its final throes).... How about we give the democrats more then 3 weeks, eh?

Every American soldier that has died since Pelosi took the Speaker's gavel is on the head of the Democrats.

Did Pelosi say they should go to Iraq? Did she give reasons for them to go? Has she switched those reasons constantly to suite her political agenda?

Damn... I just thought she gave the president the power to use the millitary if Iraq blatently threatend us with hostility after GWB spent months producing faulty and shady intel (as even Powell will tell you) that he shoveld down the throats of the entire senate.... Shame on you Democrats, for trusting the president!

I believe a majority of democrats voted for this war also.......though you dems seem to forget that:rolleyes: ........so when you run out to vote for Hiltery in 08....remember she voted and has supported this war from the get go (no matter how many lies she tells to to say otherwise).....yet you guys only want to bash Bush when your hands are just as dirty........

Yes the Dems supported the War. Why? They were told that Saddam had WMD's, was directly linked to Al Quieda and 9/11 and that we would be greeted as liberators.
In other words, they got suckered just like the rest of America.

Yes the Dems supported the War. Why? They were told that Saddam had WMD's, was directly linked to Al Quieda and 9/11 and that we would be greeted as liberators.
In other words, they got suckered just like the rest of America.

...by the Bush Administration. :nice:

I believe a majority of democrats voted for this war also.......though you dems seem to forget that:rolleyes: ........so when you run out to vote for Hiltery in 08....remember she voted and has supported this war from the get go (no matter how many lies she tells to to say otherwise).....yet you guys only want to bash Bush when your hands are just as dirty........



It's good people like you who make it hard for me to bash Bush , because it is taken the wrong way . But the way he has hanled alot of things ,it makes it impossible to keep silent . God Bless you and our heros still overthere .

And it's good to see more blacks like you joining the conservatives, but is bush really a conservative ? Sorry but I don't like Bush or his decision on who to bomb . Unless he is setting up a permanent base there to counter the threat of islam . If so he needs to tell his people .

I believe a majority of democrats voted for this war also.......though you dems seem to forget that:rolleyes: ........so when you run out to vote for Hiltery in 08....remember she voted and has supported this war from the get go (no matter how many lies she tells to to say otherwise).....yet you guys only want to bash Bush when your hands are just as dirty........

Yes you are right led by looney tune right wingers the national craze was to accuse anyone who opposed the war or even used their brain to question it anti-american etc. They changed the name of French fries to Freedom fries when France had the good sence not to go along and did all kinds of stupid things which pretty much cut off debate. Like a bunch of friggen lemmings they marched in lockstep right over the edge. And you skytrooper were leading the friggen pack along with MV et al. No all of you right wing looney tunes lost your ability to bitch the moment you called someone anti friggen american for expressing their views. Its your bed go to Iraq and bloody lie in it.

double post

double post

zipper99 Yes the Dems supported the War. Why? They were told that Saddam had WMD's, was directly linked to Al Quieda and 9/11 and that we would be greeted as liberators.
In other words, they got suckered just like the rest of America.

Yup told by other democrats......


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 19

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution 98. and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Looks like Bush didnt say anything that democrats hadn't already said.......

Now tell me again how you democrats got sucked.....suckered by your own party...hahahahahahahaha

that sucks. my heart goes out to their families and loved ones.

that sucks. my heart goes out to their families and loved ones.
Don't say that!! The deaths of our soldiers are a tool for Democrats to get the White House in 2008. Duh!!!

... Are you trying to be sarcastic? I mean, its obvious what you're doing, but you're doing it about 5 months to soon to even make sense. No one expects the democrats to fix this problem after having spent barely weeks in office. Bush has had nearly 5 years, and a republican controlled congress, and the situation was on a never ending downward spiral day after day (despite 'Mission Accomplished' and the Insurgency now in the third year of its final throes).... How about we give the democrats more then 3 weeks, eh?
Oh, I don't know. The people let their voices be heard loud and clear this past election. That's what the Left is telling us. They tell us that the people are angry about the war. So, they're in control now. Great. But, instead of doing something to stop the war they're running around with all kinds of other pet projects...like raising the minimum wage. The war is on the back burner. And, I'll tell you why...Democrats are actually hoping that the war becomes an even bigger fiasco. They're hoping more of our boys come back in body bags. They're hoping and hoping. They want to run the 2008 election against the war too.

God save America. That's all I can say. We need that kind of help.

But, I'll play ball. Every death after the Dems have been in office for 6 months is on their head. Fair? Personally, I'm only giving the pres 6 to 8 more months to clean it up. After that, he won't have any supporters.


Damn... I just thought she gave the president the power to use the millitary if Iraq blatently threatend us with hostility after GWB spent months producing faulty and shady intel (as even Powell will tell you) that he shoveld down the throats of the entire senate.... Shame on you Democrats, for trusting the president!
The Congressional Democrats had access to the same information Bush had. Everyone (inclueding Clinton, Kerry, and even the French) believed Saddam had WMDs for at least a decade.

Yup told by other democrats......

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Looks like Bush didnt say anything that democrats hadn't already said.......

Now tell me again how you democrats got sucked.....suckered by your own party...hahahahahahahaha

Oh jesus christ.... Look at the dates, look at what was said on what dates... If you arent a complete retard on the events in the middle-east, you'll instantly see what an outrageously stupid argument you are making.

The ones that crack me up the most personally are the ones (a lot of) which come after Bush had been briefing for months ont he subject...

The Congressional Democrats had access to the same information Bush had. Everyone (inclueding Clinton, Kerry, and even the French) believed Saddam had WMDs for at least a decade.

Absolutly, 100% false. You sir, are lieing. Or, perhaps just being ignorant. The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the only group granted unlimited access to classified national security and foreign intel documents. And guess what? The most vocal dissenters in the democratic party and indeed the senate on giving power to the president were ON that comittee.

And lets not even joke about the house having access to these documents, shall we?

It's the Democrat's fault. They've failed to stop the war. Isn't that why the people voted for them? To end the war?

Every American soldier that has died since Pelosi took the Speaker's gavel is on the head of the Democrats.

Man, that's lame.

M.

Don't say that!! The deaths of our soldiers are a tool for Democrats to get the White House in 2008. Duh!!!

The only person I see using the dead soldiers as a tool is you.
The original post merely passed on the news. YOU jumped in and blamed it on the democrats... I've rarely seen such a severe case of partisan knee-jerking.

M.

Yes you are right led by looney tune right wingers the national craze was to accuse anyone who opposed the war or even used their brain to question it anti-american etc. They changed the name of French fries to Freedom fries when France had the good sence not to go along and did all kinds of stupid things which pretty much cut off debate. Like a bunch of friggen lemmings they marched in lockstep right over the edge. And you skytrooper were leading the friggen pack along with MV et al. No all of you right wing looney tunes lost your ability to bitch the moment you called someone anti friggen american for expressing their views. Its your bed go to Iraq and bloody lie in it.

:nice:
And I don't blame you for getting exasperated.

M.

Oh jesus christ.... Look at the dates, look at what was said on what dates... If you arent a complete retard on the events in the middle-east, you'll instantly see what an outrageously stupid argument you are making.

The ones that crack me up the most personally are the ones (a lot of) which come after Bush had been briefing for months ont he subject...

Skytrooper, your post is also devoid of among other things the Niger uranium claim that was debunked, the State Dept's Bureau of INR and the DOE dissenting views on the purpose of the aluminum tubes, two critical pieces of Pres Bush's evidence for building his case for the Iraq invasion. Not to mention the presentations given to the UN in Feb. 2003 by Mohamed ElBaradei (head of the IAEA )and Hans Blix (head of the UNMOVIC) that debunked virtually all of Colin Powell's allegations regarding Iraq's WMD progam as he presented it to the UN earlier in that same month, about a month prior to the invasion.

Absolutly, 100% false. You sir, are lieing. Or, perhaps just being ignorant. The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the only group granted unlimited access to classified national security and foreign intel documents. And guess what? The most vocal dissenters in the democratic party and indeed the senate on giving power to the president were ON that comittee.
I see. So, what you're saying is that Democrats on the committee disssented while a large number of the rest of the Democrats (Hillary Clinton, et. al.) decided to vote in favor of the war? Talk about revisionism.

Let me ask you. If you were in the Senate or the House and members of your party were in the committee and they came out and said it was no good, how would you vote? Would you vote with the members of your party or would you vote with a president of the opposing party? You're telling me that Democrats believed the president and didn't believe their own party members.

The only person I see using the dead soldiers as a tool is you. The original post merely passed on the news.Am I? What is my goal in doing so? What do I get out of it?

The only thing I care about is what's best for America in the long run. I don't care if Democrats or Republicans or someone else is running the country...as long as they're doing what's best for our country.

The fact of the matter is, the "news" is orchestrated and calculated by the newsmakers to sour American opinions against the war and against the president. I don't think that is the best thing for our country now or in the future. In that way, they are using the deaths as a tool.


YOU jumped in and blamed it on the democrats... I've rarely seen such a severe case of partisan knee-jerking.You're damn right I did! The Democrats ran a campaign on ending the war. The won control of Congress. Now, I want to know when they're going to stop sitting on their hands and actually do something about it. It seems they're starting to realize that leading isn't as easy as heel-biting.

Instead of acting on the issue that put them in control, they're running around passing non-binding resolutions condemning the surge and trying to pass an increase in the minimum wage. Of course, this leads me to believe that they don't really believe the things they're saying. If the war was that important, they would think saving soldier's lives is more important than putting a few more pennies in people's pockets.

If the war was that important, they would think saving soldier's lives is more important than putting a few more pennies in people's pockets.

Maybe BOTH are important, and people in government can't afford to be able to only concentrate on one thing at a time?

hugs

lilnymph

I see. So, what you're saying is that Democrats on the committee disssented while a large number of the rest of the Democrats (Hillary Clinton, et. al.) decided to vote in favor of the war? Talk about revisionism.[/qoute]

*shrug* Its hard not to trust the president when he's presenting the evidence he was... At the time, Bush still had some credability, and as much as most democrats loath GWB, I dont think they were willing to sacrifice national defense on the chance that he was actually making this shit up... Of course, most of them werent aware that the intel was coming from and being manufactured by Rumsfeld and his OSP (Office of Special Plans).

[QUOTE]
In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated." (Mackay, 2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Even the information that the SSCI was getting was coming from the OSP. The few who voted against simply saw threw the bullshit and realized there wasnt enough evidence, even if the president was acting like he had secret intel, and it was a fact that Iraq had WMD.

Let me ask you. If you were in the Senate or the House and members of your party were in the committee and they came out and said it was no good, how would you vote?

*shrug* Probably to give the president power. I dont see why he'd abuse it so horribly, and if 1/2 of what he was presenting was true, then there was no way we could deny him the right to go into defense mode if Iraq attacked. And if I had voted for the war, I wouldnt have expected the Executive branch to completly botch the operation by disregarding what numerous generals were telling them regarding troop count, area security, etc... I would hope they werent so stupid as to think that Iraqi's would be laying flowers at our feet (which, is actually what they thought was going to happen).

Would you vote with the members of your party or would you vote with a president of the opposing party? You're telling me that Democrats believed the president and didn't believe their own party members.

*shrug* Like I said, even some members of the SSCI voted for giving Bush the power to defend us, but largely because the intel they were getting was as warped as what was being presented to the senate... Some were just intelligent enough to disregard it. Their senators, humans. Not robotic voting machines who only tow the party line. They, like many (or at least some) of the republicans probably really did have national defense on their minds. Its a shame that the BA should not have been trusted at all with the right to use the millitary to defend our country.

The NWO elites. You know the, [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Tribe of Judah, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan. They must have their Blood sacrifices! They seem to love to sacrifice white children the most and that is one thing they do with this war for the zoinist, jew NWO. All sacrificed on the alter of Moloch with the blessing of the U.S. congress for the fake jew Israeli government.

Lucifer is loving this blood sacrifice!!

Both sides of the political coin are covered in BLOOD. Which side of the BLOOD Soaked coin do you like best? Which side of the EVIL BLOOD Soaked political coin do you side with? So do you cast your vote with BLOOD Soaked party one or is that BLOOD Soaked party two you like?

Politicks=many bloodsuckers.

God warned you about this nasty evil in the Bible!

US policy on Israel sucks. Its why the US cannot act as an honest broker in the middle east. Too one sided. Most problems in the ME stem from the Israeli/ Palastinian issue. Not that without israel they wouldn have other problems. You want to deal with the ME deal with that problem not dictators. Because almost without exception some family or elite act as dictators in every country there. Benevolent or otherwise.