Are you concerned that

[Guest]

our country and way of life are threatened.

If your answer is yes, do you think that "The Man" is

1. A naive incompetent who is in over his head?

2. A politician who has sought the support of anyone who would support him even if they are Marxist leaning left wing progressives?

3. A knowing participant with people who have designs on destroying our way of life.

Just curious

Yoda

[Guest]

Our country and way of life was threatened LONG before Obama took office. Do you really think he is the only reason that we are in the shape we are in?To blame him for all that is wrong is the easy way out but what the heck you might as well be part of the problem rather than the solution.

[Guest]

our country and way of life are threatened.

If your answer is yes, do you think that "The Man" is

1. A naive incompetent who is in over his head?

2. A politician who has sought the support of anyone who would support him even if they are Marxist leaning left wing progressives?

3. A knowing participant with people who have designs on destroying our way of life.

Just curious

Yoda

All of the above Yoda, with the exception that this President is complicit with the Marxist left leaning left wing progressives, and not just seeking support from them. He IS one of them.

[Guest]

Never in my life have I been a participant in any of the "conspiracy theory" rhetoric about anything, anyone or any organization. My opinion hasn't changed about that. I have checked and rechecked facts, my emotions, my logic and still, I have to say, my answer is: 3. A knowing participant with people who have designs on destroying our way of life.

I believe it was RichieLion who posted this, or something like this, sometime back. This isn't my only evidence so to speak. There are many, many troubling things that Obama has done. More than anything, it is his radical connections and appointments coupled with the sweeping government involvement and government takeovers that have occured since his presidency.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qz101zzXO8E/SMWisX88-0I/AAAAAAAAAKc/MgOgFsGkc6Y/s1600-h/OBAMA_RADICAL_CONNECTIONS_LINK_DIAGRAM.jpg

[Guest]

Our country and way of life was threatened LONG before Obama took office. Do you really think he is the only reason that we are in the shape we are in?To blame him for all that is wrong is the easy way out but what the heck you might as well be part of the problem rather than the solution.

In the last year our deficit increased more than at anytime in the history of our Country.

In the last year the US Government has done more harm to the private sector than at anytime in history.

More lies have been told by this Administration than by any other in history.

I could go on and on, but Liberals will never believe the truth Anyway.

[Guest]

bump

[Guest]

our country and way of life are threatened.

If your answer is yes, do you think that "The Man" is

1. A naive incompetent who is in over his head?

2. A politician who has sought the support of anyone who would support him even if they are Marxist leaning left wing progressives?

3. A knowing participant with people who have designs on destroying our way of life.

Just curious

Yoda

1. No way his is an incompetent.....that was the last President.
2. I believe he is a politician but the Marxist thing seems overdone.
3. No worth answering.

[Guest]

In the last year our deficit increased more than at anytime in the history of our Country.

In the last year the US Government has done more harm to the private sector than at anytime in history.

More lies have been told by this Administration than by any other in history.

I could go on and on, but Liberals will never believe the truth Anyway.

Not when you misquote it.....


Bush lied and people died and still do. The tax cuts for the rich and no funding for the war(s), the non funded socialist prescription drug benefit for Seniors and all that TRAP money.....has lead to the budget problems we have.

[Guest]

Not when you misquote it.....


Bush lied and people died and still do. The tax cuts for the rich and no funding for the war(s), the non funded socialist prescription drug benefit for Seniors and all that TRAP money.....has lead to the budget problems we have.

It is hopeless to ask you, but name one lie Bush told.

[Guest]

Cashman did you forget the weapons of mass destruction...oh thats right there were none.

[Guest]

http://www.ostroyreport.com/2005/10/list-of-bushs-lies-and-policy-failures.html

[Guest]

Cashman did you forget the weapons of mass destruction...oh thats right there were none.

Where was the lie. Every leader in the world including American leaders believed there Were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Good example of Liberal lies about Bush.

[Guest]

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/toptenlies.htm

[Guest]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm
the reason most world leaders thought there were wmd's is because of the Bush LIES!!!!!

[Guest]

One final thought: As I have stated in other posts I am very disappointed in Obama and will probably not vote for him. One of my reasons is that he is acting more and more like Bush. You have the right to attack Obama and his policies but to give Bush a free pass and call him a true American is a joke. And then to say he doesn't lie? He's a politician...they ALL lie. I believe he did more harm than good to this country and I'm not alone is this judgement. Even fellow REpubs ignored him during the election,he became very toxic and was not even invited to their convention. Why? Because he lied.

[Guest]

http://www.waketheflockup.com/WRHARTICLES/WMDlies.html

[Guest]

Dubya may have been fed some erroneous information, but I truly believe that he had the best interest of America in his heart. I do not believe that Obama has any interest in America except to undermine and destroy everything that has taken over 200 years to accomplish. So far, he's doing a pretty good job.

[Guest]

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/government_employee/05/19/remember-the-legacy-of-george-bush/
this is just for you GETDUL981

[Guest]

Thanks, I appreciate that.

[Guest]

Since this thread seems to have changed to the usual Bush-bash by our leftist bloggers, I figured I'd post a a couple of lists of lies and blunders that our current President is accused of. I can find much more if you like

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/04/first-100-days-list-of-100-of-obamas.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/4701/long-post-complete-list-obama-statement-expiration-datesurl]

[Guest]

I have come to the conclusion that all the Obama worshipers and Bush bashers have developed their own brand of "Kool-Aid" and it is a futile effert to try and get them to change.

[Guest]

http://www.ostroyreport.com/2005/10/list-of-bushs-lies-and-policy-failures.html

We can see why you think like you do. Your sources suck.

Yoda

[Guest]

We can see why you think like you do. Your sources suck.

Yoda

I visited his site and I couldn't agree more. To this day I can't believe we have people that believe that crap.

[Guest]

WAYNE....this is the preamble and objective of that one website...

"The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the Republican Party. While our mission is to support our new President Barack Obama and help build a greater Democratic majority in Congress, we're not afraid to criticize our own when warranted."

I think you said you were an educator.....do you, as an educator think it is wise to visit sites like this ? Would you suggest your students visit websites like this ?

It is not the party that is objectionable....it is the PARTY FIRST mentality that is objectionable.

Dont you feel that reading what is going on from a few unbiased sources and making your OWN judgement would work ?

[Guest]

the same old stuff over and over....I was challenged to show anytime that Bush lied,I did using more than one source. So some of you try to use the old deflection trick....if we can't dispute the facts lets challenge one source and ignore all the others. Even if you don't like the source I see none of you disputing what is said just that the source is leaning toward a particular group. I guess I'm the only one who uses sources that have a favorite side. WRONG!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Looking back it was Cashman who asked me to point out one lie by Bush. By the way do you still insist he didn't lie? By the way Presidents do lie,it does not make them bad people unless of course it leads to the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.

[Guest]

Looking back it was Cashman who asked me to point out one lie by Bush. By the way do you still insist he didn't lie? By the way Presidents do lie,it does not make them bad people unless of course it leads to the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.

I think Cashman's point is that virtually every leader of the free world believed the same "lie" that Iraq was in possession of those weapons and, in fact, Hussein refused to deny their existence by his refusal to allow unfettered inspections. You can say "lie" all you want; doesn't make it so.

Also, if your sources are far-left kook bloggers, don't expect people to debate their fantasies, delusions and quotes taken out of context. What's the point?

[Guest]

Again you are not refuting the facts. He freaking lied and he lied alot.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction."..Bush
"And Hussein is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."..Bush
He was not totally truthful with the American people it's as simple as that. It's the major reason that the Repubs lost the White House. Americans were simply tired of his lies and deceit period.

[Guest]

Again you are not refuting the facts. He freaking lied and he lied alot.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction."..Bush
"And Hussein is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."..Bush
He was not totally truthful with the American people it's as simple as that. It's the major reason that the Repubs lost the White House. Americans were simply tired of his lies and deceit period.


Please supply a link to the two quotes you just alluded to that youi say are direct quotes from Bush !

I am betting you will never find a link to those two quotes !!!!

I would also ask that you address the fact that has been made to you and ignored by you that the entire free world and the United Stations believe that they had WMD

[Guest]

waynet, you believe Bush lied. So, you must have studied and thought this through. Why do you think he said those things about Saddam Hussein and lied to the world?

[Guest]

waynet, you believe Bush lied. So, you must have studied and thought this through. Why do you think he said those things about Saddam Hussein and lied to the world?


I would love to have Wayne respond to both your post and mine, but doubt we will hear from him again for awhile...that is what he does plus if one of the whacko web sites does not address it, he will not be able to formulate an opinion !

Man, I am so sick of this folks blaming everything but the Holloway murder on Bush...he did some stupid things and a number of dumb ones...he spent too much money, but this mantra that we hear is a result of the Soros take over of the Dem party and the dumbing down of the members to spout only the party line no matter what (Oh I know the Repubs try to do the same thing...just not quite as organized or good at it as the Dems).


Bottom line is that Wayne will NOT respond to either post...he may post but he WILL not address the questions asked...because he cannot !

[Guest]

I agree Bucco. I have waited on him to supply a reliable link to your question. The thing that really irks me is that I fall for it nearly everytime that he and other liberals get off subject (sorry Yoda) and Bush bash!! Such an obvious ploy those liberals have. No real answers. Just distraction. I really try to have a conversation, and I know you do too. But it's just one-sided when you don't get a real answer.

[Guest]

I agree Bucco. I have waited on him to supply a reliable link to your question. The thing that really irks me is that I fall for it nearly everytime that he and other liberals get off subject (sorry Yoda) and Bush bash!! Such an obvious ploy those liberals have. No real answers. Just distraction. I really try to have a conversation, and I know you do too. But it's just one-sided when you don't get a real answer.

Just once would love to hear them come on here and say something positive about Obama instead of just bashing Bush. Even if I disagreed with them it would be refreshing to think they may be paying attention to the real world !

[Guest]

I'm suprised that these enlightend Dems, liberals, progressives, etc. seem to forget that "W" is no longer the POTUS. To keep blaming a man who no longer has the power is just the way the Dems and their ilk avoid talking and placing this country's best interest into their politics. It is easier to blame the other guy than come up with a plan to move our country along,

Clearly, those in our congress cannot justify the reckless path that they have put into motion and their tax and spend policies so they explain it away by saying "'Bush started it, he lied, he created the oil spill he did this or that".
Note how much easier that is than being transparent.(or intelligent) Too, it is easier for the Dems to follow the leadership(?) of their very astute (snicker) and experienced, kick ass leader. (a true diplomat he is, NOT)

This thread only proves the point that there are those who only spout the party line and can not give accurate citations to their rhetoric.

[Guest]

What IS it with people here?

Took me 15 seconds to find the following quote:


"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.


From the 6/18/2004 Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

Now, I'm sure you won't like this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2526958

That one has 10 quotes and identifies the when and where on each - though I confess I didn't chase down THOSE references to ensure them.

For crying out loud, the 'solution' to the 'problems' with Obama (perceived, real or otherwise) is NOT to put the previous gang of Party-First, Country-Somewhere-Down-The-List kleptocrats back into power!

I can't stand EITHER ONE of these self-serving batches of legislooters.

[Guest]

waynet, you believe Bush lied. So, you must have studied and thought this through. Why do you think he said those things about Saddam Hussein and lied to the world?

I will answer the question for you....... there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war. One is that Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush 41 killed. The other major thought is that Cheney wanted to finish what 41 started but failed to complete.

So the Bush administration went on a PR campaign for war. Using the 9/11 attack as the basis for war it was relentless on TV and talk radio. Many in the US thought that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. The CIA believed their informants who later were found not to be credible.

I can remember several statements on the Sunday morning shows....but my personal favorite was Condi Rice saying "Do we need to wait for the mushroom cloud".

Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein.

[Guest]

What IS it with people here?

Took me 15 seconds to find the following quote:



From the 6/18/2004 Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

Now, I'm sure you won't like this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2526958

That one has 10 quotes and identifies the when and where on each - though I confess I didn't chase down THOSE references to ensure them.

For crying out loud, the 'solution' to the 'problems' with Obama (perceived, real or otherwise) is NOT to put the previous gang of Party-First, Country-Somewhere-Down-The-List kleptocrats back into power!

I can't stand EITHER ONE of these self-serving batches of legislooters.

Did you read these? you should have before you posted them.

Yoda

[Guest]

What IS it with people here?

Took me 15 seconds to find the following quote:



From the 6/18/2004 Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

Now, I'm sure you won't like this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2526958

That one has 10 quotes and identifies the when and where on each - though I confess I didn't chase down THOSE references to ensure them.

For crying out loud, the 'solution' to the 'problems' with Obama (perceived, real or otherwise) is NOT to put the previous gang of Party-First, Country-Somewhere-Down-The-List kleptocrats back into power!

I can't stand EITHER ONE of these self-serving batches of legislooters.

So now you're saying Bush lied because what he said, according to the kook Dem. Underground source you linked, gave "the impression" of a link to the 9/11 attacks?
What proof do you have of the disconnection of the Terrorist organizations to Saddam Hussein? All you'll find is the supposition of people who hated the Bush Administration and that's not good enough for me. I don't buy it and I don't care how many kook leftist bloggers you cite.

The ultra-liberal Washington Post? This article was written at the height of the anti-Bush backlash of the leftist organizations against the former President and even in this article cites meetings between Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein and discounts them. Well, I didn't then and I don't now. I'm sorry, but this all seems lame now, even more so than it did in 2004.

[Guest]

I will answer the question for you....... there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war. One is that Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush 41 killed. The other major thought is that Cheney wanted to finish what 41 started but failed to complete.

So the Bush administration went on a PR campaign for war. Using the 9/11 attack as the basis for war it was relentless on TV and talk radio. Many in the US thought that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. The CIA believed their informants who later were found not to be credible.

I can remember several statements on the Sunday morning shows....but my personal favorite was Condi Rice saying "Do we need to wait for the mushroom cloud".

Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein.

cologal, waynet is always being asked to supply a reliable source. So in fairness, where are your sources? Are these just your feelings? When you say, "...there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war..." Whose thoughts? Yours?

When you say, "So the Bush administration went on a PR campaign for war. Using the 9/11 attack as the basis for war it was relentless on TV and talk radio," the terrorist attacks against American citizens was September 11, 2001. We first invaded Iraq March 23, 2003. That is some PR campaign! It even fooled the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and 36 other countries in addition to 29 Democratic US Senators and 82 Democratic members of the US Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein." Who exactly is "they"? Did Bush say this?

What about these people? Were they under the same hypnotic trance that the watchdog media was under with Bush's "PR campaign for war"?:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"[W]e urge you, 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455

[Guest]

I will answer the question for you....... there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war. One is that Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush 41 killed. The other major thought is that Cheney wanted to finish what 41 started but failed to complete.

So the Bush administration went on a PR campaign for war. Using the 9/11 attack as the basis for war it was relentless on TV and talk radio. Many in the US thought that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. The CIA believed their informants who later were found not to be credible.

I can remember several statements on the Sunday morning shows....but my personal favorite was Condi Rice saying "Do we need to wait for the mushroom cloud".

Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein.


I siuncerely believe as do most credible historians that the main reason for invasion of Iraq was for the US to establish a "base" in the mideast. This was a concept fostered by a number of neo con groups!

The justification at the time was handed to them by the UN....they (the UN) ALL agreed that there was a threat of WMD in Iraq....the UN's only slowness was the invasion itself. They had already passed the FIFTEENTH resolution on Iraq but many countries did not want to have a confronttation, even though Iraq had been SHOOTING AT OUR PLANES and others for a number of years.

Added to that was the FACT that Iraq was a base for many of Al Queda training camps.

[Guest]

cologal, waynet is always being asked to supply a reliable source. So in fairness, where are your sources? Are these just your feelings? When you say, "...there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war..." Whose thoughts? Yours?

When you say, "So the Bush administration went on a PR campaign for war. Using the 9/11 attack as the basis for war it was relentless on TV and talk radio," the terrorist attacks against American citizens was September 11, 2001. We first invaded Iraq March 23, 2003. That is some PR campaign! It even fooled the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and 36 other countries in addition to 29 Democratic US Senators and 82 Democratic members of the US Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein." Who exactly is "they"? Did Bush say this?

What about these people? Were they under the same hypnotic trance that the watchdog media was under with Bush's "PR campaign for war"?:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"[W]e urge you, 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455

Great post BK.....the revisionist history fostered by the Soros group has grown over the years with no consideration of actual facts.

[Guest]

Administrator: please move to "Political"

[Guest]

Administrator: please move to "Political"

I swore this WAS in political...did I lose my way ?

[Guest]

It is in political. So is the other discussion saratogaman flagged to be put into political...at least my computer is showing both discussions in the political forum.

[Guest]

Yoda: Noticing what didn't show up in your quoting of me.

What part of:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.

wasn't clear? That's the exact quote from the Washington Post article.

Heck, the caption on the accompanying picture reads:

President Bush, with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, talks to reporters after a Cabinet meeting. He again said that "there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."


Yes - I read all the quotes in the Democratic Underground site. I figured you would dismiss them, and I even admitted that I didn't chase down all the quotes to see if they were attributed properly. What I *did* say was that it took me seconds to find examples and that's why I led with the more recognizable Washington Post.

Again, I'll sum up.

Bush was an *atrocious* President. He left a mess unlike anything since *Hoover*. And don't get me started on shredding the Constitution with wanting even more executive power Obama seems to be showing that he's not exactly up to the task of fixing what he and his team identified as the crap that was left for them. Granted the jury is still out as far as a final verdict goes, but, IMO, the direction is not looking good.

[Guest]

Yoda: Noticing what didn't show up in your quoting of me. <by djplong>

What part of:
Quote:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.
wasn't clear? That's the exact quote from the Washington Post article.
************************************************** ************************************************** ***************
I referred to it and I still don't see an reasonable proof that there was no relationship. There were definitely meetings between leaders of the terrorist group, apparently even with bin Laden himself, and that more proof of a relationship than the people who discount the notion of a relationship have. What's to this "relationship"? Who knows anymore? You cannot deny that The Iraq State and Al-Qaeda did indeed meet and discuss; and that, in essence, is a relationship in some form.

[Guest]

I think that Iraq was providing medical care and support to one or more members of Al-Queda.

Yoda

[Guest]

THERE WERE TRAINING CAMPS FOR AL QUEDA IN IRAQ

Which I have heard nobody dispute

[Guest]

Yoda: Noticing what didn't show up in your quoting of me.

What part of:

wasn't clear? That's the exact quote from the Washington Post article.

Heck, the caption on the accompanying picture reads:


Yes - I read all the quotes in the Democratic Underground site. I figured you would dismiss them, and I even admitted that I didn't chase down all the quotes to see if they were attributed properly. What I *did* say was that it took me seconds to find examples and that's why I led with the more recognizable Washington Post.

Again, I'll sum up.

Bush was an *atrocious* President. He left a mess unlike anything since *Hoover*. And don't get me started on shredding the Constitution with wanting even more executive power Obama seems to be showing that he's not exactly up to the task of fixing what he and his team identified as the crap that was left for them. Granted the jury is still out as far as a final verdict goes, but, IMO, the direction is not looking good.

When you compare him with Hussein.

[Guest]

Bucco,please read #3 in Bush 10 greatest lies which I posted earlier. Maybe you missed it or didn't bother to read it.
As for getting off the subject I DID NOT bring up Bush,I was challenged to find times when Bush lied and I supplied them.

[Guest]

cologal, waynet is always being asked to supply a reliable source. So in fairness, where are your sources? Are these just your feelings? When you say, "...there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war..." Whose thoughts? Yours?

When you say, "So the Bush administration went on a PR campaign for war. Using the 9/11 attack as the basis for war it was relentless on TV and talk radio," the terrorist attacks against American citizens was September 11, 2001. We first invaded Iraq March 23, 2003. That is some PR campaign! It even fooled the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and 36 other countries in addition to 29 Democratic US Senators and 82 Democratic members of the US Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein." Who exactly is "they"? Did Bush say this?

What about these people? Were they under the same hypnotic trance that the watchdog media was under with Bush's "PR campaign for war"?:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNESCO [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"[W]e urge you, 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455


This is now ridiculous.....the intelligence that was used during the run up to the war was later found to be flawed. No matter who or how many people believed it .....the were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ. THERE WERE NO TIES TO AL QAEDA. THERE WAS NO RECONSTITUTION OF A NUCLEAR PROGRAM. That the facts....not what people thought but the facts you cannot change the facts. No matter how many quotes you throw at me. History has proven all those people wrong. I was out there protesting the war because I didn't believe the hype and I was correct you all were wrong. End of story. So many young man and women have been lost and wounded, my nephew amoung them, and still you all still hang on to this BS.


How can you deny the PR campaign....didn't you watch the Sunday News shows....listen to right wing talk radio OMG they even had a country western song written. I heard Candi Rice and Dick Cheney tell the lies with my own ears on national television.


Now for my sources...from he tried to kill my daddy to the Country Western Songs.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/02weds1.html

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/condoleezz164877.html

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/courtesy-of-the-red-white-and-blue/866b47204cee11b2a4a7866b47204cee11b2a4a7-61271900807

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvj6zdWLUuk

If you think you hit a nerve you would be correct......... I got flipped the finger, called names and spit on, fortunately I left before the tear gas was used just for protesting an unjust war. And 5 times my family has had to bear having one of our own at risk....all because they lied.

[Guest]

THERE WERE TRAINING CAMPS FOR AL QUEDA IN IRAQ

Which I have heard nobody dispute

There were NOT. Proven source please. I could only find 1 from the Weekly Standard all others and history say not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_Al-Qaeda

[Guest]

cologal quote: "...That the facts....not what people thought but the facts you cannot change the facts. No matter how many quotes you throw at me. History has proven all those people wrong. I was out there protesting the war because I didn't believe the hype and I was correct you all were wrong. End of story. So many young man and women have been lost and wounded, my nephew amoung them, and still you all still hang on to this BS...."

So somehow you knew the "truth" when even leaders in other countries and members of the US Congress believed the PR lies. Okay, Bush came before the American people and said things that were believed to be true at the time and they turned out to not be factual.

It does seem hypocritical to defend untruths that come from Obama's Whitehouse by saying Obama isn't lying if he didn't directly speack the words and/or if that is what he believed and was told at the time.

No disrespect, I have always told you how proud I am of your nephew and been sympathic with you over him being in harms' way every time you mention him. Pulling at the heartstrings of patriotic Americans, like me, by using a soldier and in the same breath talking about protesting a war is beyond my comprehension. Wonder how the troops who didn't have your clairvoyant powers to see through the lies felt to see people protesting a job they were proudly doing?

Did you protest Obama's surge in troops in Afghanistan?

It is absurb to say that Alan Jackson's patriotic song after the attacks on American soil September 11 was part of the Bush propaganda machine.

[Guest]

cologal quote: "...That the facts....not what people thought but the facts you cannot change the facts. No matter how many quotes you throw at me. History has proven all those people wrong. I was out there protesting the war because I didn't believe the hype and I was correct you all were wrong. End of story. So many young man and women have been lost and wounded, my nephew among them, and still you all still hang on to this BS...."

So somehow you knew the "truth" when even leaders in other countries and members of the US Congress believed the PR lies. Okay, Bush came before the American people and said things that were believed to be true at the time and they turned out to not be factual.

It does seem hypocritical to defend untruths that come from Obama's Whitehouse by saying Obama isn't lying if he didn't directly speak the words and/or if that is what he believed and was told at the time.

No disrespect, I have always told you how proud I am of your nephew and been sympathetic with you over him being in harms' way every time you mention him. Pulling at the heartstrings of patriotic Americans, like me, by using a soldier and in the same breath talking about protesting a war is beyond my comprehension. Wonder how the troops who didn't have your clairvoyant powers to see through the lies felt to see people protesting a job they were proudly doing?

Did you protest Obama's surge in troops in Afghanistan?

It is absurd to say that Alan Jackson's patriotic song after the attacks on American soil September 11 was part of the Bush propaganda machine.

If a lie is told a 1,000 times does it make it true? Nope its still a lie. The CIA relied on informants who had their own agenda's. For example Curveball:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

I looked at what the weapons inspectors were saying...they couldn't find anything mainly because nothing was there to find. The Bush administration refused to believe them.


Alan Jackson's song includes the line "I don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran" which was and is the problem. So many people believe that Iraq had attacked us on 9/11 but they didn't. That song was part of the PR campaign....

I will never understand your reasoning that my protesting the war somehow means I don't support the troops or have contempt for them. Quite the contrary I protested because the troops were being used for an unjust war for political reasons, Iraq not Afghanistan, not in defense of this country. It is my right, in this country, to protest peacefully .... I held a sign which said "Support Our Troops Bring them Home".

I fully support the troops...in fact since I purchased my home in TV I have saved all of my travel size shampoo's, I travel almost every week, and give them to Operation Shoebox. I also donated my lanai furniture to them to sell. I always contribute to Coffee for the Troops at Starbucks. I just don't like going to war when the troops are NOT defending the United States.

Didn't support the surge in Iraq don't support the surge in Afghanistan....the government is just to corrupt to support.

I believe in personal responsibility....so many of the posters here will never admit that Bush or his administration ever lied or made any mistakes. And yet they post that Obama lied all the time. But when you look at it Obama never said that....its a double standard and I hate double standards. So had the post said "The Obama administration lied" then no response from me.

If we all be fair in comparisons then no problem.


You have to know, being from Colorado, that I am a country western fan.

[Guest]

BK,I really believe Bush knew he was not telling the American people the whole truth. He wanted to go to war for reasons I don't know. He is not the first President to invent reasons to go to war. McKinley and the Maine,LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin,some say FDR forced the Japanese hand. Presidents lie peroid.

[Guest]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
No links!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

It almost seems silly to argue a point about an Alan Jackson song. But since I am a big fan of Alan Jackson and Country music and since you brought it up, the lyrics, actually the chorus, to the song say:

I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith hope and love are some good things he gave us
And the greatest is love

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/alanjackson/wherewereyouwhentheworldstoppedturning.html

Point taken about my post saying what Obama said and didn't say. My post should have said, Obama appointee Ken Salazar modifies report after experts sign off and Obama says nothing.

[Guest]

It almost seems silly to argue a point about an Alan Jackson song. But since I am a big fan of Alan Jackson and Country music and since you brought it up, the lyrics, actually the chorus, to the song say:

I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith hope and love are some good things he gave us
And the greatest is love

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/alanjackson/wherewereyouwhentheworldstoppedturning.html

Point taken about my post saying what Obama said and didn't say. My post should have said, Obama appointee Ken Salazar modifies report after experts sign off and Obama says nothing.

The difference in Iraq and Iran Thats the one I meant. And thanks for the point taken.....

[Guest]

OMG, he is saying he's just country singer, not too political, you know, a simple man, a normal person. He said he does watch the news some, like CNN. He couldn't point out the two countries on a map. He doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran. Honestly, what the heck am I missing that you see in that??!!!
I don't think there is a secret message in that song. You can dissect that he watches CNN instead of Fox.

[Guest]

OMG, he is saying he's just country singer, not too political, you know, a simple man, a normal person. He said he does watch the news some, like CNN. He couldn't point out the two countries on a map. He doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran. Honestly, what the heck am I missing that you see in that??!!!
I don't think there is a secret message in that song. You can dissect that he watches CNN instead of Fox.

I quess I saw it a different way.....mainly because so many people were saying that Iraq attacked us. So I might have made just a little to much over it. You should have heard me screaming at the radio when I heard that....or maybe you did and didn't know what it was. LOL

[Guest]

I didn't hear you scream cologal. But you know what even if Alan Jackson's song was political, which I don't think it was, Alan Jackson is free to speak his mind. He can say what he wants to say ... he shouldn't have his feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy his records when he speaks out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I don't really care what Alan Jackson said. I want to do what I think is right for America, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to the way Iraq was.

[Guest]

Why are we spending all this time on a subject that has nothing to do with today and what Obama is doing to us.

So the liberals on this thread are convinced, without facts on there side, that Bush is a liar. Let's leave them in there mire and talk about the future.

[Guest]

I didn't hear you scream cologal. But you know what even if Alan Jackson's song was political, which I don't think it was, Alan Jackson is free to speak his mind. He can say what he wants to say ... he shouldn't have his feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy his records when he speaks out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I don't really care what Alan Jackson said. I want to do what I think is right for America, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to the way Iraq was.

You are absolutely right about his right to say what he wants to say. If Barbra Streisand wants to say something that also is her right. I just thought the song was way over politicized.

[Guest]

Cashman,the facts have been presented to you as far as I can tell 8 times from many different sources. Because you choose to ignore them does not mean they are not facts. The facts say Bush lied period.

[Guest]

Cashman,the facts have been presented to you as far as I can tell 8 times from many different sources. Because you choose to ignore them does not mean they are not facts. The facts say Bush lied period.

Actually; it's only interpretation and suppositions and opinions that say "Bush Lied". You haven't proved your point no matter how many times you jump up and down.

[Guest]

Actually when I said in an above post: "Alan Jackson is free to speak his mind. He can say what he wants to say ... he shouldn't have his feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy his records when he speaks out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I don't really care what Alan Jackson said. I want to do what I think is right for America, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to the way Iraq was... "

....I plagiarized and took the liberty of adding Jackson's name, masculine pronouns and the past tense "was" at the very end of the exact quote Bush made when he was asked what he thought about the comments Dixie Chick Natalie Maines said about him following 9/11.

Just good to know that cologal agreed with Bush on something.

[Guest]

Why are we spending all this time on a subject that has nothing to do with today and what Obama is doing to us.

So the liberals on this thread are convinced, without facts on there side, that Bush is a liar. Let's leave them in there mire and talk about the future.

They" are under orders to distract us from what is going on.

Yoda

[Guest]

Why don't all you "we're losing our country" people sign off here and go listen to some more to Beck, Savage, et al to get your fix and increase your anger.
Methinks you are allowing yourself to be manipulated and sold a bill of goods -- and a ton of their books. They are, deep down, good self-promoters who add nothing to true dialogue. They are selling books and ads on their shows...and those programs truly are shows. These self-serving, self-promoting clowns are not new...remember Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy? They, too, cared more about themselves than their country.
We have real issues and real opportunities to be part of the growth and development of this nation. Let's look to real leaders (today's or tomorrow's) and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the charlatan naysayers. Let's do some positive things, express some positive ideas rather than whine in unison with (expletive deleted!) selfish horn-blowers who will never put their names on the line and run for office...putting their money where their mouths are.
They are part of the problem.

[Guest]

Why don't all you "we're losing our country" people sign off here and go listen to some more to Beck, Savage, et al to get your fix and increase your anger.
Methinks you are allowing yourself to be manipulated and sold a bill of goods -- and a ton of their books. They are, deep down, good self-promoters who add nothing to true dialogue. They are selling books and ads on their shows...and those programs truly are shows. These self-serving, self-promoting clowns are not new...remember Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy? They, too, cared more about themselves than their country.
We have real issues and real opportunities to be part of the growth and development of this nation. Let's look to real leaders (today's or tomorrow's) and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the charlatan naysayers. Let's do some positive things, express some positive ideas rather than whine in unison with (expletive deleted!) selfish horn-blowers who will never put their names on the line and run for office...putting their money where their mouths are.
They are part of the problem.

I would ask you to come on here and explain what this President and congress have done that is so postiive ? PLEASE

By the way, your assumption and it is a HUGE assumption of listening to those you mentioned shared by many of this Presidents supporters who lump anyone who opposes him into one simple little chute is as simple as those on the right who felt that Olberman and his ilk who defamed Bush nightly on a personal basis was the listening post for all those on the left.

I base my opinions , and have shared them on here since before this man was even a candidate on his background, lack of ANY experience, his associatees, etc and NOTHING..not one thing has he done that is not in accordance with my thoughts during the primary !~


I just want to add that I have asked those who come on here in support of this President to come back and tell everyone the positive things he has done and NOT ONE has responded....most talk about Bush

[Guest]

I think we have made some progress -- limited, far from perfect -- on making health insurance available to more people and eliminated the pre-existing condition block; started to have some regulation of the crazy, incestuous Wall Street nonsense where the rating companies are paid by the investment firms to 'affirm' the alleged value of the investments and then tell investors that the rating agencies gave them an A-plus; and finally blowing apart the Mineral & Minings Service division of the Interior Department that has been -- literally and figuratively -- in bed with the coal and oil industry. MMS was set up to monitor and safeguard oil and coal exploration. It has been a flop...under several administrations...including this one.
I have no preference for any of the various cable channel pundits or either political party or any columnist. I care only for the nation and reasonable discussion of possibilities.
And I hope that we can all distinguish between real ideas and self-serving BS that seeks only to divide the nation and sell books.
I seek solutions, not predictable talking point, canned nonsense.
Please join me in a dialogue...one that is for the nation's good with no commercial gain for anyone.
What say you?

[Guest]

I think we have made some progress -- limited, far from perfect -- on making health insurance available to more people and eliminated the pre-existing condition block; started to have some regulation of the crazy, incestuous Wall Street nonsense where the rating companies are paid by the investment firms to 'affirm' the alleged value of the investments and then tell investors that the rating agencies gave them an A-plus; and finally blowing apart the Mineral & Minings Service division of the Interior Department that has been -- literally and figuratively -- in bed with the coal and oil industry. MMS was set up to monitor and safeguard oil and coal exploration. It has been a flop...under several administrations...including this one.
I have no preference for any of the various cable channel pundits or either political party or any columnist. I care only for the nation and reasonable discussion of possibilities.
And I hope that we can all distinguish between real ideas and self-serving BS that seeks only to divide the nation and sell books.
I seek solutions, not predictable talking point, canned nonsense.
Please join me in a dialogue...one that is for the nation's good with no commercial gain for anyone.
What say you?

1. YOU mentioned Beck and Savage...NOT ME. I cannot recall ever quoting any of these folks and I mentioned those I mentioned to show how foolish your statement was.

2. In regards to the insuring of uninsured, do you realize what he swapped for that simple political gain, which by the way was not and is not wanted by the american public ?

3. I support more regulation of Wall St so we agree.

4. I just want to tell you that you may post here anytime on any subject as many have asked for supporters of the President to do just that but all we hear is about Bush for the most part !

Tomorrow, time permitting perhaps we can continue on actual issues without talking about pretty speeches or pre conceived notions and talk about FACTS and what is really happening !

[Guest]

I think we have made some progress -- limited, far from perfect -- on making health insurance available to more people and eliminated the pre-existing condition block; started to have some regulation of the crazy, incestuous Wall Street nonsense where the rating companies are paid by the investment firms to 'affirm' the alleged value of the investments and then tell investors that the rating agencies gave them an A-plus; and finally blowing apart the Mineral & Minings Service division of the Interior Department that has been -- literally and figuratively -- in bed with the coal and oil industry. MMS was set up to monitor and safeguard oil and coal exploration. It has been a flop...under several administrations...including this one.
I have no preference for any of the various cable channel pundits or either political party or any columnist. I care only for the nation and reasonable discussion of possibilities.
And I hope that we can all distinguish between real ideas and self-serving BS that seeks only to divide the nation and sell books.
I seek solutions, not predictable talking point, canned nonsense.
Please join me in a dialogue...one that is for the nation's good with no commercial gain for anyone.
What say you?

I say that I would enjoy discussing current events and "politics" with you saratogaman. Like Bucco, I have never used Beck or Savage or whoever it is you are talking about selling books or being self-serving as a source. But my (which means nothing on this forum - I don't make the rules) one requirement; unless it is your opinion, which I have no problem whatsoever with, please give me a source for information that is presented as fact.

Like you, I think I'm smart enough to decide between BS and truth. Start a discussion or join in with any of the other posts we have all contributed to here on TOTV political. I find it frustrating at times, enlightening at times and an opportunity to delve deeper into my own learning experience. Which, by the way, this is to me.

[Guest]

Cashman,the facts have been presented to you as far as I can tell 8 times from many different sources. Because you choose to ignore them does not mean they are not facts. The facts say Bush lied period.

I thought you were just wasting everyone's time preaching the LIBERAL spin, but it appears you are completely, tho falsley, convinced that Bush, Kerry, both Clintons, Powell and every other leader in the world lied about the WMD"s. That is serious stuff. You have my sympathy.