Snow: ‘I Don’t Think It’s Ever Been the Goal of the Administration to Expand Executive Authority’
Snow: ‘I Don’t Think It’s Ever Been the Goal of the Administration to Expand Executive Authority’
During today’s White House Press briefing, Tony Snow insisted that the administration has not intentionally sought to expand executive power:
QUESTION: Is this [Supreme Court decision] a setback in terms of the broader goal of this administration to expand executive authority?
SNOW: I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of the administration to expand executive authority. In a time of war, the president has tried to act in a way that meets the needs and obligations of a commander in chief against a dispersed and highly unique kind of enemy.
But we don’t have expand executive power sessions. So nobody thinks in terms of, How do we expand executive power?
Nobody except the Vice President of the United States. Here’s Cheney on 12/20/05:
I believe in a strong, robust executive authority. And I think the world we live in demands it…I think you’re right, probably the end of the next administration, you had the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy, then a number of limitations that were imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate. But I do think that to some extent now, we’ve been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency.
From Day 1 of the Bush presidency, Cheney has lead a vigorous campaign to expand executive power, which he described to Bob Woodward. Today’s decision was, in fact, a setback in Cheney’s efforts.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
But he is the *Decider* and gets to decide what laws apply to him. Thats not a power grab, its just another way to ignore constitution.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pmHey, Tony demanded a seat at the table during policy discussions when he came on board, not retroactively to six years ago when Cheney started this crap. How can he be held responsible?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pmTony Snow believes that ALL AMERICANS have the IQ of the average FOX NEWS viever!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:01 pmAND WITH THAT VIEVER INSTEAD OF VIEWER I MUST HAVE THAT FOX IQ!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pmDoes every republican have to wear a Red Tie? Is its in the republican handbook? Looks like Tonie Snowjob is in perfect school boy lockstep.
Aja#1) you just said it all in a few words! bush will always find a way to go around the real Rule Of Law or Laws.That’s how a dicator works!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:04 pmTony is rapidly approaching the “brillance” of Baghdad Bob. We should start comparing statements.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pmI eagerly await these snowflake press briefings – I make bets with myself on how far he will stick his foot in his mouth.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pmHe just cannot get the FOX lying reflex out of his speech.
The argument Cheney makes, “we’ve been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency” certainly pertains to expansion of Executive power, but is also a holdover from the larger bash Clinton Presidency trip.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pmLike usual > ask the question > BushCo responds with the patented LIE.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:16 pmAnd it will continue each and evey time until we rid ourselves of this administration.
Tony Snow has lied for the last time with this spew > he must resign and be prosecuted as a paid accomplice in Bush Regime criminality!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pmThey just state the EXACT OPPOSITE EVERY TIME.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:20 pmThey just state the EXACT OPPOSITE of the TRUTH EVERY TIME.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:20 pm“Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
June 29th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI’m sorry I missed that.
Did the reporter call him on it?
Will there be a follow up press conference for the Democrat to dispute Snow’s lie?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pmSnow: ‘I Don’t Think…
I think he should have stopped right there. Why do they have to lie about things like this? Everyone knows they are…they have said it themselves. I guess it is just in their reflexes to lie and see what happens. Sad.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:24 pmTony Snow is so amazingly full of shit…aren’t you supposed to make your lies at least somewhat believeable when you’re the Press Secretary?
It’s like he’s not even trying.
The Doctrine of the Unitary Executive has been an integral part of this administration since day one, and to even attempt to deny it is laughable.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:25 pmSo, where are those rebuttal Democratic press conferences?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:26 pmIf Mr. Snow wanted to make a truthful statement, he could have said, “I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of this administration to tell the truth.” Instead, he chose to lie.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:29 pmSomeone should have asked what the goal of the administration is……
June 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pmFrom Cheney’s (and presumably Bush’s) point of view, they are not expanding but restoring the presidency to it’s rightful omnipotence, which was initially diminished in the aftermath of Watergate, 30+ years ago, beginning with the Ford administration, where Cheney and Rumsfeld had their attitudes set in stone.
The fact that Nixon was the one to intitally create ‘the imperial presidency’, escapes notice in the (crumbling) circles of power DC these days.
The pendulum is swinging. Fasten your seat belts.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI can just imagine what a White House meeting looks like. Rove and Cheney spoon-feed the decider bits and pieces of talking points while dullards like Snow shake their heads in approval. You can tell by the way Bush speaks in public that everything is explained to him like he’s a first-grader, because that’s the way he presents it to the public. Whenever he has to stray from the talking points he is a mess. You would think by now that a rational person would stop taking advice from Rove and Cheney–every single thing they had the decider decide has been a debacle. Did I mention Bush’s poll numbers and approval rating? Harriet Myers? Thanks for the advice, Karl! Social Security Reform? Thanks for the advice, Karl! Invade Iraq? Thanks for the advice, Dick!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:35 pmAs proudleftist pointed out, one would have to have an IQ equal to FOX ratings (share of audience) to actually swallow this crap whole, because Snowjob is back to DoubleSpeak (though in this case, as with anything Junior says, all you have to do is take the exact opposite, and you will know what the truth is).
This perfidy of an Administration has been doing nothing but grabbing more and more power for itself! Who does he think he is kidding, besides the 29% back-wash?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:38 pmtechnically, what snow’s saying is the conservative line: we’re not expanding it, we’re restoring it.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:39 pmhence cheney’s comment. are they being intellectually honest? no.
Comment by almostboiledfrog: The pendulum is swinging. Fasten your seat belts.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:43 pmIndeed. The GOP train is leaving the tracks and won’t go down easy. The American people see what this administration is really about–and it ain’t about helping us. I’m sure they’ll leave once the Treasury has been fully looted. As smarmy and pathological as guys like DeLay are, he can read the writing on the wall–the future will not hold the GOP in a very pretty light come November. GOP sockpuppets can’t defend this White House and mess we are in.
I think that after eight years of Clinton not acting like a real commander in chief the executive powers of the president were forgotten.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:45 pmAnd the award for best Clinton refrence with nothing to do with the thread goes to Tracy!!!
Tracy would you like to give a acceptance speach?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:47 pmtracy, they cant take it when a bad word is uttered about their beloved baffoon.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#25
June 29th, 2006 at 3:50 pmI think that after eight years of the drooling brain dead puppet president that Reagen was this country forgot what a real president was supposed to be. Glad we had a glimpse of it for a while with Bubba.
#26
It has alot to do with the thread. Your award is worthless.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pmHillary C
Actually I think Tracy had inadvertantly complimented Clinton. After all, unlike Dubya, Clinton didn’t need to assume more power.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pmthe award matches his words
June 29th, 2006 at 3:53 pm#28
You actually think that Clinton compares to Reagan? That’s funny.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:54 pmclinton would not amount to more than a pimple on reagan’s ass
June 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pmno tracy I think you are mistaken. That was a gratuitous comment designed to deflect debate, and supposedly to piss off all the evil liberals. Care to expand on why it has alot to do with the thread. I realize that anything over a single sentence is difficult for you to formulate, but please try.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pmReply to #25:
Well done, Tracy. Your post is breathtaking in its stupidity, for two reasons:
1.) We weren’t talking about Clinton. Geez…let it go, already.
2.) The executive powers were never intended to reach this far, rendering both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government completely impotent. Do yourself a favor and google ‘checks and balances’.
The President was not intended to be a king…in fact, the rejection of the monarchy was pretty much the whole damned point of the Revolutionary War. Google ‘Federalist #69′ for a better explanation than I am capable of.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pmTracy: remind us again how a “real commander” acts. Does he send our soldiers to fight and die for his lies and hubris? Does he go on vacation then host a “flyover” when one of his largest cities suffers the worst natural disaster in history? Does he keep rasing the national debt rather than reel in his own pork-ridden spending? Does he spy on his own people? Does he leak to the press? Does a real commander act like an adult from time to time? Go back to the GOP web blogs–you and you’re ilk are in need of more help than making a few posts here can cure. Just remember that Osama bin Laden not Saddam Nussein killed US citizens on US soil.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pmhere they go again
June 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pmWow, the kool-aid is really kicked in on Tony. This isn’t a spin, its an obvious lie Tony. George has been coronated King since day one. I guess you’ve been off the planet for awhile.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm#32
June 29th, 2006 at 4:00 pmNo I don’t and I am glad he wasn’t as bad as Reagan. But unfortunately we have the same people pulling the strings of this president as there were for Reagan. Basically Junior and Reagan are at the mentality level. Neither can make coherent sentences and need help to remember what is going on in the world. Unfortunately for Reagan it was a disease….unfortunately for us, for Bush its genetics and cocaine. Nevertheless, both are puppets and so glad to see you like the marienette show….but I don’t. I like to see capable people in the most important office this country has.
Snow should have just stopped at saying “I don’t think…”
June 29th, 2006 at 4:00 pm1st dumb then dumber
June 29th, 2006 at 4:01 pm“I don’t think it’s ever been a goal of the administration to be truthful to the American people.”
June 29th, 2006 at 4:01 pmHillary C ought to know about pimples on the ass. Jeebus- would you wingnutter stop invoking the ghost of Ronnie Raygun every post? Please?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:02 pmRedleg: Snow keeps saying, “I don’t think…†because he doesn’t think–he reads Karl Rove’s talking points.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:02 pm#
clinton would not amount to more than a pimple on reagan’s ass
Comment by Hillary C. — June 29, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
If Bush hadn’t come from a wealthy elite family, he would be working as a swing shift manager at a taco bell.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:03 pmTracy
Hillary
What did Reagan actually do? What was Reagan’s great victory?
Communism? Russia’s economy had been collapsing for years, and in the end it was the East German Prime Minister’s screw-up that downed the wall. It had less to do with Reagan and more to do with the fact that communism doesn’t work.
The Economy? Reaganomics anyone?
Terrorism? Iran Contra. Look it up.
Enviromentalism? Well, I suppose if you call hiring an Evangelical nutjob who seriously believed that we should hurry up and get that last tree chopped down so god can come to advise him on enviromental matters a success…
Reagan is the second most over-rated American president in American history. The rightwing tries to build him up in the face of luminaries like FDR because it is scared shitless of the Left bringing up Nixon (who gets on a lot of worst lists for his being forced to resign.) The fact is, Reagan was not a great president, he was a distinctly mediocre president.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:04 pmwow then you guys could carpool
June 29th, 2006 at 4:04 pmIf Bush hadn’t come from a wealthy elite family, he would be working as a swing shift manager at a taco bell.
Comment by Krazny — June 29, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
No…he would put it out of business.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:05 pmSaw a good Nazi documentary lastnight. Tell me this guy ain’t KKKARL:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/aa4/himmler_x1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/himmler.htm&h=402&w=300&sz=17&hl=en&start=10&tbnid=-DAERr7XFrVXFM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=89&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHeinrich%2BHimmler%2B%26svnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
June 29th, 2006 at 4:06 pmBruce — his name was James Watt and his real claim to fame was having Wayne Newton instead of the Beach Boys play the Mall in Washington because he wanted a more “wholesome act” during the 4th of July. You can just imagine how that went over–another example of an out of touch GOP. Must be time to exit this thread–when I start in on Wayne Newton it has run it’s course . . .
June 29th, 2006 at 4:08 pmi’ll alert the media that you are headed for another thread
June 29th, 2006 at 4:10 pmWow…
June 29th, 2006 at 4:11 pmAnd I though Mclellan was the worse bull-shitter I’d ever heard!
#46 Reagan’s big accomplishment was he made middle america feel good about shouting USA USA USA! Clinton made people actually think about the impact we have on the world and what it takes for real positive change.
The old saying goes, if you make people think, they will hate you. If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you.
For example:
I think that after eight years of Clinton not acting like a real commander in chief the executive powers of the president were forgotten.
Comment by Tracy
See? Clinton did in Bosnia what Bush claims to be doing in Iraq. And he did it within the restraints of this so-called “nadir of executive power” and with fierce Congressional oversight. That takes some smarts. It takes more than “I’m the decider.” More than “tear down this wall.”
It’s all about feel-good rhetoric for them, not real results.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:17 pmTony Snow is right about one thing is He doesn’t think.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:19 pmJust when we all thought that the Press Secret-ary spot couldn’t get any worse, here comes the snow man.
Un-F’in-believable
RIP
SGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 Inf (Stryker)
KIA 03 Feb 05
Mosul, Iraq
Or As Tony Snow And The Repuppetcan’s would say
June 29th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#1462
You actually think that Clinton compares to Reagan? That’s funny.
Comment by Tracy
That is funny, isn’t it? Clinton was SO much better compared to Reagan.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:20 pm“So, where are those rebuttal Democratic press conferences?” –Never Did Anything For His Country
June 29th, 2006 at 4:21 pm#34
Since Clinton didn’t fully exercise his authority as commander in chief shows that the media, as quoted by TP,…
“Is this [Supreme Court decision] a setback in terms of the broader goal of this administration to expand executive authority?”
…seems to think it was Bush’s goal to EXPAND that authority of commander in chief. Then to step off the cliff, TP stupidly quotes Cheney…”I believe in a strong, robust executive authority.”…which doesn’t, in anyway, insinuate that he believes in EXPANDING the authority of the commander in chief. Pointing out the lack of due diligence on the part of the Clinton administration for so many years proves that the media is numb when it comes to what they think is expected of the commander in chief especially when it comes to fighting terrorism. Need I remind everyone, that Clinton had no problem sending cruise missles into Afghanistan in order to assassinate bin Laden, but thought the he had no authority to take him into custody when he was in Sudan, regardless of whether or not the Saudis would take him.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:24 pm#34
refer to #58
June 29th, 2006 at 4:27 pm“That is funny, isn’t it? Clinton was SO much better compared to Reagan.”
Clinton got his dick caught in his zipper working at midnight. His encyclopedic knowledge of the issues of his presidency outshone his advisors over and over.
Reagan went home every day at 5 PM, kept a clean desk and a cleaner brain, smooth as a goddamned cue ball.
Reagan did not attempt to destroy the Constitution and the New Deal. For this he was roundly hated by the people who are currently in charge, having stolen all their elections. Ronnie won fair and square, by landslide.
Absent liars like Tony Snow and the rest of the rightwing ‘anything for power’ traitors, absent the nationwide vote-fraud system installed by these pigs, they would be out on their ears and in the dock.
They investigated Clinton and found nothing. Give us ten minutes of justice on ANYONE in the Shitehouse, except the maids and butlers, and you might as well start building gallows they are SUCH warcriminals, traitors, corrupt warmongers, racists, classists, murderers, and thieves.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:27 pm“…seems to think it was Bush’s goal to EXPAND that authority of commander in chief.” ==Tracy
Bush: I am the Decider.
Cheney: GFY.
Rice: We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Powell: Here’s a bottle of anthrax just like the stuff we sent to Daschle.
Wolfowitz: WMD was just a propaganda tool.
Rove: Brewster Jennings is a CIA front company.
Snow: I am a liar, but look at my tie.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:33 pmTracy,
June 29th, 2006 at 4:33 pmBush ONLY cares about his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief. The other duties of president are meaningless to him. You appear to think that CIC is the most important aspect too, especially since you have felt so threatened and unsafe since 9-11. I sure hope you can one day stop from wetting your bed every night worrying about the bad Islamofascists that are out to take away your freedoms.
Snow’s inept: Cheney and Addington and the DoJ legal crew have made it their goal, in teh wake of Iran-Contra, to expand power.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:36 pm#60 – Bravo, Paul in LA! *standing ovation*
June 29th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#53
“Clinton did in Bosnia what Bush claims to be doing in Iraq. And he did it within the restraints of this so-called “nadir of executive power†and with fierce Congressional oversight.”
“That takes some smarts.”
It sure does. especially when there was no UN Resolution authorizing Clinton to bomb the Serbians. With what UN Resolution did Clinton have the authority to bomb the them? NATO’s charter apparently trumphed the UN Security Council…but that isn’t really important. European stability was apparently more important that Middle East stability. Milosivic was less of threat to the Baltic’s stability that Saddam ever was to the Middle East.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:49 pmOh yeah cause those 500 shells of aging degraded mustard gas, was such an imminent threat to the middle east. And those aging tanks and helicopters he couldn’t get parts for were sure a threat too.
I think I love you tracy you have a great sense of humor. Very Colbert like. How do you maintain the I love Bush more then you act?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:53 pmoh puleeeeezzzzzz?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:57 pm#62
After what I witnessed on 9/11 yes I felt threatened and unsafe. You must be one of those Europeans in which Bush RIGHTLY said “For Europe, September 11 Was a Moment. for us, it was a change of thinking”.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pmAhhh Haaaa! I was right! I predicted one of the things he would need to learn in that new job was how to lie with a straight face! I guess after all those other things, such as bodies are just numbers, he finally picked up on the art. Beautiful!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pmSay What????…
Oh, Tony. Give me a break….
June 29th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#39
“Neither can make coherent sentences and need help to remember what is going on in the world.”
Why is Reagan regarded as the “Great Communicator” by just about every presidential scholar? You are too funny!
June 29th, 2006 at 5:04 pmAfter what I witnessed on 9/11 yes I felt threatened and unsafe.
Comment by Tracy — June 29, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
Five times as many people that year were murdered by other Americans. Did you fear your fellow countrymen five time more than Osama?
This year, we’ll top that number of Americans who’ve killed other Americans by a couple thousand, while Osama has killed zero.
Your fears are irrational. Fight Big Tobacco. You have the greatest chance of dying from second hand smoke (one in 25) than you do of murder by another human being.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:30 pmTracy,
June 29th, 2006 at 5:34 pmNo, I’m not a European. I’m a former Army combat arms officer. I served my time when we had greater threats than Saddam. 9-11 didn’t change my thinking enough to believe that attacking Iraq was the answer to 9-11. I’m not that stupid- are you?
…Furthermore, 9-11 didn’t change my thinking enough to believe we needed to give unlimited and unchecked power to that feckless turd Bush.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:38 pmI think that after eight years of Clinton not acting like a real commander in chief the executive powers of the president were forgotten.
Comment by Tracy — June 29, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Ahhh…best laugh of the day. You mean “acting” like a president by:
- Catching a 7.5 lb perch and declaring it the best moment of your presidency.
- Authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans under the guise of national security and then fighting tooth and nail anyone that even dares suggest any oversight of the program.
- Standing by and obviously sanctioning events after his VP shoots someone in the face and refuses to be interviewed by local police until the next day because of “national security” concerns.
- Spending a record number of days on vacation as compared to his predecessors.
- Declaring to the world that he does not care about the number one terrorist whose group was responsible for the worst attack on American soil.
- Taking a quick break from one of those vacation days and rushing back to the White House late in the night to sign legislation to assist one person — Terri Schiavo — yet refusing to do the same while a major hurricane bore down on the southern states, instead spending time eating birthday cake and strumming a guitar, ignoring reports of impending doom, and later declaring he didn’t anticipate the destruction that resulted.
- Making multiple signing statements indicating he does not have to follow the laws he otherwise signs.
- Convincing Americans that we can catch terrorists by scanning the calling habits of tens of millions of Americans although the the records being viewed have no names attached to them.
- Bitching about leaks and newspaper publications regarding tracking terrorists’ financial records and how national security is damaged, yet 5 years earlier signing an executive order that describes how we track the finances of terrorists, information that is available in a fact sheet on the White House web site for the world to see. Want the link?
Oh I could go on. But don’t have time right now. Yep…Bush has it on ol’ Clinton when it comes to acting presidential.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:39 pmSNOW: I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of the administration to expand executive authority [beyond that of a total Dictator].
or
SNOW: I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of the administration to expand executive authority [because a War-Time Commander in Chief has always had unlimited power].
June 29th, 2006 at 6:29 pmCan anyone give me an example of how/when President Clinton attempted to curb or cede any executive power?
June 29th, 2006 at 6:30 pm#74
“That explains the ridiculous posts.”
Yeah, especially those posts by those who STILL don’t realize and/or care about what what happen on that terrible day, i.e. those assholes who insinuate that my fear about terrorism is unfounded.
“You actually believe Europe isn’t touched by terrorism?”
No and for you to even ask that question is stupid in and of itself.
“Tell that to all of the dead europeans in the WTC, and throughout europe.”
That would be kinda hard to do, but I could remind their leaders about those Europeans who died on 9/11, because they didn’t and still don’t seem to care much.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pmRRS wouldn’t you instead be looking for an example of Clinton expanding executive power? This thread is about Snow denying that the white house is trying to expand executive power, not curb power.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pm#75
“Good question.”
Apparently you aren’t sophisticated enough to know the answer that those scholars already know.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:43 pmCan anyone give me an example of how/when President Clinton attempted to curb or cede any executive power?
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
Clinton made sure the FISA rules covered physical searches, as well as other types of searches.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:45 pm#77
Which unit? Apparently almost everyone here are former military.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#76
You weren’t scared at all by those planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon?
“Five times as many people that year were murdered by other Americans. Did you fear your fellow countrymen five time more than Osama?”
19 hijackers killing over 3,000 people within a few hours is the same as thousands of others murdering one many two at a time each over a year’s time is comparable? Please tell me you are joking.
“Your fears are irrational.”
You saying that you don’t have those same fears is a lie.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:02 pmWith what UN Resolution did Clinton have the authority to bomb the them? NATO’s charter apparently trumphed the UN Security Council…but that isn’t really important. European stability was apparently more important that Middle East stability. Milosivic was less of threat to the Baltic’s stability that Saddam ever was to the Middle East.
Comment by Tracy
Sorry, I thought the issue was Clinton not acting “Presidential.” You said he didn’t act like a real Commander In Chief. Why are you backing off that assertion now?
As for your statement about stability, that is just ridiculous. Every military in the region of Bosnia went on high alert because of Milosevic’s actions. Not so with Saddam, unless you are referring to 1990 or 1980-88.
Also, before Clinton acted in his CIS capacity, al Qaeda was operating in Bosnia. He denied them a base of operations and training ground in Europe. Bush gave them a training ground in Iraq. Clinton stopped a civil war. Bush started one. Clinton succeeded in everything Bush failed. That is why Republicans hate him.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:07 pmThat would be kinda hard to do, but I could remind their leaders about those Europeans who died on 9/11, because they didn’t and still don’t seem to care much.
Comment by Tracy
That is really due to your perception more than their reality.
European stability was apparently more important that Middle East stability.
It sure is. We have lived with instability in the mideast for centuries, and even in recent decades. Instability in Europe has been historically much worse for us.
But my point is: Clinton stopped a war and restored stability and established democracy. Bush started a war in Iraq, created instability and I suppose you could call 3 elections a democracy if you ignore the assassinations, bombings, and sectarian violence exceeding many civil wars throughout the world. Next Bush is going to leave the Iraqis fighting each other and the new government, if it is to survive, will need to become very oppressive and violent itself. The troop levels in Bosnia were much higher and the troop losses much lower. There are many objective measures. Bosnia and Iraq will be case studies on how to do it and how to not do it.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:15 pmClinton stopped a civil war.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:19 pmComment by Kermit the Freedom Frog
Sorry, pal. Wrong. Clinton was, as any other president of US, a defender of big companies (IMF in the case of Yugoslavia) and a murderer. He was moderate, though. NOt like this lunatic you have right now.
#79
“Authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans under the guise of national security…”
Untill you present a court ruling or opinion stating otherwise that the NSA wiretapping program is illegal you comment is irrelevant.
“Standing by and obviously sanctioning events after his VP shoots someone in the face…”
It was an accident! Please! LOL!
“Spending a record number of days on vacation as compared to his predecessors.”
Didn’t affect his job in anyway.
“Declaring to the world that he does not care about the number one terrorist whose group was responsible for the worst attack on American soil.”
You took that literally? That explains alot.
“…yet refusing to do the same while a major hurricane bore down on the southern states”
I am sure the governor and the mayor of New Orleans were there riding out the storm.
“Making multiple signing statements indicating he does not have to follow the laws he otherwise signs.”
Like? If you are referring to the NSA program, try again.
“Convincing Americans that we can catch terrorists by scanning the calling habits of tens of millions of Americans although the the records being viewed have no names attached to them.”
Since you aren’t a counter terrorism expert you couldn’t possibly know what this program entails.
“Bitching about leaks and newspaper publications regarding tracking….”
Use your little brain and find out exactly what the NY Slime published about this program. The BS was not the fact that they talked about the program. Everyone knew, including the terrorists, that we were tracking the financial records, however when they reveal WHICH banking consortium was responsible for doing the tracking, THAT is a real problem and is tantamount to royally tipping off the terrorists. BTW your link isn’t that revealing so don’t bother.
“Yep…Bush has it on ol’ Clinton when it comes to acting presidential.”
He sure does.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:22 pm#88 Is the civil war in Bosnia still going on then? No, the killing stopped, that to me is more important than which corporation he supported.
Tracy… tsk tsk check your facts man:
Bush’s signing statements have been detailed elsewhere. Use google.
Ever hear that saying the harder I work the luckier I get? You think it’s coincidence that Bush got VERY unlucky at the end of both of his long vacations?
And yes, we should take the President’s words literally. He didn’t add a “just kidding” after he said that did he? Otherwise, how is anyone to know which of bush’s statements are to be “taken literally” and which we should dismiss?
Everyone knew, including the terrorists, that we were tracking the financial records, however when they reveal WHICH banking consortium was responsible for doing the tracking, THAT is a real problem and is tantamount to royally tipping off the terrorists.
Everyone knew which agency, anyone who made an international money transfer knew, the SWIFT form is required. Did terrorists need to know, or could they assume bank transfers would be watched? No, this is political press bashing, nothing more. Don’t be so gullible.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:37 pmTracy
June 29th, 2006 at 7:37 pmI started reading your nauseating nonsense but could only manage to get to the part where you ask where it says you can’t wiretap without a warrant. It’s called the Fourth Amendment, asshole, but what would a crazed wingnut know about the Constitution anyway?
#88
“Sorry, I thought the issue was Clinton not acting “Presidential.†You said he didn’t act like a real Commander In Chief.”
My point is that it was alright with the European countries like France and Germany to take care of Milosivic without UN approval, but not for Bush to take care of Saddam without that same approval.
“Every military in the region of Bosnia went on high alert because of Milosevic’s actions.”
And not one of those countries in which Milosivic was carrying out his genocide were members of NATO. Again Europeans were more worried about what is happening next door than across town, which is exactly why they are not the leaders of the world.
“He denied them a base of operations and training ground in Europe.”
Peanuts compared to the one Bush took out in Afghanistan.
“Clinton stopped a civil war.”
Only because we as STILL THERE!!! Give us a break!
“Bush gave them a training ground in Iraq.”
Do you actually think that there are terrorist training bases in Iraq? Those suicide bombers are doing “local” suicide missions in Iraq, not carrying out missions in other countries.
“Clinton succeeded in everything Bush failed.”
Clinton didn’t prevent 9/11 from being plotted and financed in 1999, nor did he prevent MULTIPLE terroist attacks from being carried out while he was in office. Bush did more to combat terrorism in the first six months after 9/11 than Clinton did throughout the 1990s. You are getting funnier by the minute!
“That is why Republicans hate him.”
Americans hate him because he did little to protect them from terrorists.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:40 pmto me is more important than which corporation he supported. Comment by Kermit
June 29th, 2006 at 7:54 pmWell…mmmm. The killing really began when US and NATO started to dropping bombs over albanians. I will post this.
I agree with you in many points, but dont make a hero out of another “pacifier”.
Kermit.
The U.S. watched for three years as Serb forces killed Muslim civilians in Bosnia, before its launched decisive bombing raids in 1995. Even then, it never intervened to stop atrocities by Croatian forces against Muslim and Serb civilians, because those forces were aided by the U.S. In 1999, the U.S. bombed Serbia to force President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw forces from the ethnic Albanian province of Kosovo, which was torn a brutal ethnic war. The bombing intensified Serbian expulsions and killings of Albanian civilians from Kosovo, and caused the deaths of thousands of Serbian civilians, even in cities that had voted strongly against Milosevic. When a NATO occupation force enabled Albanians to move back, U.S. forces did little or nothing to prevent similar atrocities against Serb and other non-Albanian civilians. The U.S. was viewed as a biased player, even by the Serbian democratic opposition that overthrew Milosevic the following year.
Sorry for the lenghty post.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:58 pm“Running the government would be easier in a dictatorship, as long as I’m the dictator”—- George W. Bush.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:29 pm“Whose more Pres-i-dental? I am. Heh, heh. See this codpiece. And my Texas walk that you call a swagger. Heh, heh. I can even ride a mountain bike and get right back up when I crash it. That’s hard work. Gotta do hard work when your the Com-man-der in Chief. That’s right, and look Pres-i-dental. That means, lookin like a Pres-i-dental. I’ve been practicing in front of the mirror in the O-val Off-ice. Heh, heh. Condi’s been helping me. Heh, heh. Lookin good. Pres-i-dental. I decided. Heh, heh”
June 29th, 2006 at 9:13 pm– GWB
You weren’t scared at all by those planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon?
Scared? No. I wasn’t living in NYC or DC, so I wasn’t in imminent danger. Shocked was a better word. Never scared. As I pointed out, there are greater dangers in our daily lives than Osama. And fear doesn’t help – it shuts of the rational part of teh brain. Seriously. A doctor explained this to me. When you’re afraid, adrenalin causes your brain to shut off all functions except the ability to fight or flee, heartbeat and breathing. You lose the ability to think in a logical manner. This is why the neocons in charge want you to be afraid, because it turns you emotional and irrational. Not a knock on you, just a fact of human anatomy.
So, I’m not afraid of Osama attacking me. But I am afraid of second hand smoke, pesticides and hormones in my drinking water and Global Warming. Not afraid as in shrieking like a B-grade horror flick victim, but concerned enough to want to fight against those things.
19 hijackers killing over 3,000 people within a few hours is the same as thousands of others murdering one many two at a time each over a year’s time is comparable? Please tell me you are joking.
If the end result is death in every instance, does it matter the method? No, of course not. So, don’t try to spin it away from the fact that more Americans kill Americans than any terrorist ever has. Or ever will. And that your fear of being attacked by them is irrational.
You saying that you don’t have those same fears is a lie.
Comment by Tracy — June 29, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
No it’s not. I just have a different perspective. I’ll give you an analogy. YOu are standing at the bottom of the Empire State Building, at the edge of the curb where taxi cabs are whizzing past you. You’re anxious. I, however, am at the top of the building with a view of most of Manhattan. Now, someone asks us both “Are taxi cabs dangerous?” Do you genuinely expect us to have the same answer?
It’s all perspective Tracy. You choose to be afraid. We choose a different perspective. Until you can grasp that fact, you will never understand that you have choices. Adn the choice is to step back, off the curb and find a better perspective. I don’t expect you to get it. Because if you did, you’d understand why most of the liberals in here have served in the miltary, and most of you conservatives have not.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:17 pmThat would be kinda hard to do, but I could remind their leaders about those Europeans who died on 9/11, because they didn’t and still don’t seem to care much.
Comment by Tracy — June 29, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
So everyone else is wrong and you are right?
Lemme remind you, before you answer, that we are fighting a losing war in Iraq – who did not attack us, while Osama is still, 5 years later, free and at large…
June 29th, 2006 at 9:21 pm#60 – Bravo, Paul in LA! *standing ovation*
Comment by Zookeeper — June 29, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
HERE! HERE! I’ll 2nd that!!!
#61 was rich too!
and “hillary c” sure sounds like “amy”,the troll…
June 29th, 2006 at 10:10 pmjust sayin’
Tracy,
June 29th, 2006 at 11:16 pmBush didn’t do a damned thing about Bin Laden until after 9-11. He ignored multiple warnings from intelligence officials. Once he did do something, he decided to leave the Afghanistan situation up in the air in order to invade Iraq, a country that was not involved in the 9-11 attacks. SOunds to me like Clinton did less harm to our national security than Bush has done.
…could Tony’s cancer have metastisized…
…into his brain?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:30 pmIt sure does. especially when there was no UN Resolution authorizing Clinton to bomb the Serbians. With what UN Resolution did Clinton have the authority to bomb the them?
Comment by Tracy #65
T’rashy,
…”genocide” – such as that being committed by the Serbians upon the Muslim populations in bosnia-Hercegovina…
…gave Clinton a much HIGHER authority to act than a UN resolution…
…that’s right you al Cracker Bushite TRAITOR…
…Clinton had MORAL authority…
…and the WORLD agreed with his actions…
June 29th, 2006 at 11:38 pmMe to Tony Snow saying Bush isn’t trying to expand power. “Oh. Really..”
June 29th, 2006 at 11:40 pmWhat a hoot to read the drool from tracy here regarding Reagan and Clinton, some of his rants have gone beyond most myopic fools that defend the Bush/Rove/Cheney regime. One of the first points to be made regarding the worship of Reagan that we still are forced to endure is the fact that most fools like tracy think Reagan “won” the Cold War. Of course he helped bring down the Soviets but the Soviets were falling apart at the seams and didn’t need much help, there system didn’t work and failure was assured with their arrogance. The man Reagan told to “tear down this wall” played a much bigger role in ending the Cold War than Ronnie. With what you have drooled here tonight tracy I know you don’t agree, you have a pair of blinders glued to your head. But we can agree that if you say we owe Reagan a nod for ending the Cold War what has our current President (it is pissing on that word to call Bush a President) done, he has brought the same worries back. After all these years of fools like tracy giving lectures on how Reagan saved us from the threat of Armageddon and proceeding to hold him up as a great leader we now face a much more unstable world because of the unchecked hubris of the pnazi fools you are so proud of. Bush is pissing on Reagan if we are to believe the sputum spewing from your brain tracy.
This is the most secretive administration in our nations history, this doesn’t represent freedom or anything that relates to American values. To defend the destruction of the Constitution as you and your ilk do is pathetic. What is your comeback?? More drool about Clinton? How pathetic. Don’t forget that the very Military Bush and co. are slowly destroying was built up by Clinton. Yeah go ahead and lol like the fool you are. We have no draft and our Military is spread so thin with the deployment in Iraq we have very little chance of responding to other conflicts that are on the horizon, North Korea etc., with anything but a desperate nuclear attack that could create even more global conflict to say the least. We are now hated by a vast majority of countries that previous to the Bush regime were respectful and our allies and now wouldn’t think of being our allies. Oh, just a reminder Clinton was responsible for much of that respect and admiration not Ronnie.
And to get back on topic there hasn’t been a President in our nations history that has pissed on the Constitution with such frequency as Bush, drooling about Monica and cigars up her snatch won’t change that. Don’t forget the $500 billion and counting we have borrowed to spend in Iraq. At least Clinton raised taxes on the ultra rich so we had a strong economy with a large surplus, the one Bush pissed away in no time at all. These neo-cons that you cherish tracy have subverted the Constitution to the point we have a government by and for the corporations and if you haven’t noticed they are screwing you in the ass. The power grab by these jerks should upset any true conservative that for years cried about (and still do) government intrusion into personal lives not to mention that government is the problem not a solution for anything. You know the line of bull from Grover, drown it in a bathtub. So why do you stand by these fools when they wish to pass anti-flag burning amendments, tap phones, e-mails, bank records and intrude into almost every freedom that made our country great before the neo-cons took power??? The answer is you are drunk on the kool-aid and your posting here proves it. Take the blinders off and open your foolish pea-brain and maybe you will se the light, even if you do you are doomed to sheep status with a two digit IQ like yours.
“Bush did more to combat terrorism in the first six months after 9/11 than Clinton did throughout the 1990s. You are getting funnier by the minute!” pea-brain trailer tracy
Your pea-brain at work tracy. How about the memo regarding terror attacks with the possible use of aircraft. What did Bush do after reading those tracy??? He cleared more brush and loafed at his ranch. It is fact that the Clinton administration warned Bush that the biggest threat was to come was from these terror mongers and the arrogant fools that you admire ignored these warnings. Blame Clinton all you want but Bush was president and we were attacked on his watch not Clintons. And by the way i didn’t like Clinton for other reasons that regard domestic policy not 20 year old real estate deals and his sex life. Clinton will go down in history with a solid foreign policy record as opposed to Duhbya.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:44 amThe word is “led,” not “lead.”
June 30th, 2006 at 4:48 amSNOWJOB, SNOWJOB, SNOWJOB…….
June 30th, 2006 at 6:23 amum.. look.. i am not proud to admit it, but there were a few days i was hung over and slept in [i figure if i was rich i could be President]. So maybe i missed it. When did congress declare war. Cause otherwise the last i checked they haven’t done it since WWII.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:27 amif they control the language.. they can frame the debate.
#99
“Scared? No. I wasn’t living in NYC or DC, so I wasn’t in imminent danger. Shocked was a better word. Never scared.”
THAT is the only reason you weren’t scared. At the time those planes hit you were positive that where you live wouldn’t be a target? I live in the Dallas area and you bet I was scared considering I work in the downtown area. I didn’t know which cities would be hit next or if airplanes were their only weapon. I don’t know where you were at on the morning of 9/11 but it must have been somewhere where those terrorists wouldn’t bother hitting.
“But I am afraid of second hand smoke, pesticides and hormones in my drinking water and Global Warming.”
I am too but this is not at all the same when your country is under attack by terrorists. Again you were exposed directly so you have nothing to compare it to.
“This is why the neocons in charge want you to be afraid, because it turns you emotional and irrational.”
Bush doesn’t WANT you and I to be afraid but consider neither you or I have REALLY exposed to terrorism we don’t have any thing to relate to. Do the neocons in Israel embellish the terrorist threat in their country in order to drum up support for fighting Hamas? I think not. You and I live in relative security and have no experience in the exposure to terrorism so for you to say you aren’t afraid is probably true…untill you are directly exposed to it and then I GURANTEE you will change your tune.
“If the end result is death in every instance, does it matter the method?”
No but your comparison is in the same general area but not even close to being on target.
“And that your fear of being attacked by them is irrational.”
I am not trying to say that mine or your fear of being mugged its irrational, but again your comparison is not a rational one.
“Now, someone asks us both “Are taxi cabs dangerous?†Do you genuinely expect us to have the same answer?”
No. That is exactly my point! You have a different perspective than I do because where you live apparently there wasn’t any danger of being attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
“Because if you did, you’d understand why most of the liberals in here have served in the miltary, and most of you conservatives have not.”
Only here in this forum…of course. In the real world, at least from the multiple military personel I have talked to the vast majority of the military is far more conservative than liberal.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:44 amRe: #89
Untill you present a court ruling or opinion stating otherwise that the NSA wiretapping program is illegal you comment is irrelevant.
I guess these Rebublican senators are irrelevant too. Per ThinkProgress:
Some of the harshest criticism have come not from Senate Democrats but Senate Republicans:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “The FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that.â€
[Sen. Graham has logged six-and-a-half years of service on active duty as an Air Force lawyer, and in 1988 went into private law practice before being elected to the Senate.]
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “â€There is no doubt that this is inappropriate.â€
[Sen. Specter began his career in public service as an Assistant Philadelphia District Attorney. While serving in that position, he was named Assistant Counsel on the Warren Commission investigation into President Kennedy's assassination. Two years later, Senator Specter was elected District Attorney of Philadelphia at the age of 35.]
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so…â€
[Sen. McCain doesn't have a law degree, so I guess he can just shut up.]
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): “I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis…â€
[Sen. Brownback was president of his class at University of Kansas Law School. Over the years, Sam has been a radio broadcaster, attorney, teacher, administrator, congressman and senator.]
Unless you are going to support a bipartisan congressional inquiry to find out once and for all if any innocent Americans were spied on, YOUR comments are irrelevant.
Oh, and if Bush has nothing to hide as he has stated, what is HE afraid of???
It was an accident! Please! LOL!
I was referring to Bush sanctioning the events after the shooting. Did you overlook that word?
Didn’t affect his job in anyway.
I didn’t say it did. But considering another situation in which he was “away from the office” as he sat for 7 minutes in a Florida classroom after finding out a SECOND plane had hit the WTC towers and did NOTHING, I have to wonder about his effectiveness away from Washington.
You took that literally? That explains alot.
Then we can’t take his statement saying he wanted Bin Laden “dead or alive” as literal either, now can we?
In fact, we shouldn’t take anything this president says as literal. You know, there is a pattern going on. As you may recall, in the last SOTU address he said he wanted to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil. Several days later, as you’ll recall, spokesmen from his administration told us he wasn’t being literal.
I am sure the governor and the mayor of New Orleans were there riding out the storm.
That doesn’t excuse Bush’s inaction. Bush didn’t give damn. It’s as simple as that. The mayor’s and governor’s actions, or lack thereof, doesn’t give Bush an excuse. I suppose a county fire department that is restricted from crossing the city limits to respond to a fire should just let the house that is 50 yards away just burn to the ground, along with the humans inside it. After all, they can blame the city fire department for being ineffective and too slow to respond.
Like? If you are referring to the NSA program, try again.
I didn’t realize any law had recently been signed by Bush regarding the warrantless wiretapping. Care to provide a link?
From those damned irrelevant lawyers:
What does Leahy know about law? Oh, yeah:
Since you aren’t a counter terrorism expert you couldn’t possibly know what this program entails.
You are right. I only have what has been reported and what President Decider tells us:
So we “strictly target al Qaeda” yet we are reportedly scanning calling patterns of tens of millions of Americans. Hmmm. Scanning them to isolate patterns of terrorist activities. If my records are being looked at, scanning to see my 50 calls to my wife’s cell phone in March, and the dates and times and call lenghts and hoping that they don’t raise a flag so that the FBI can bust down my door without announcing themselves, an action SC has recently approved, and hopefully not giving me a heart attack in the process.
BTW your link isn’t that revealing so don’t bother.
I didn’t provide a link, fool. But here it is. Now go read the fact sheet and come back here and tell me that none of this information helps terrorists in any fashion. Come on. You can say it. The information posted by the White House does not help terrorists or hamper our efforts at tracking them in any way.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:06 am#100
“So everyone else is wrong and you are right?”
No, I said that that if the leaders of Europe cared as much about the genocide that was going on in Croatia and Albania (Muslim BTW) they would show the same regard for those in Iraq who were just as deserving to be saved from Saddam as those being slaughtered by the Serbians. Same goes for those in Rwanda…thanks to the French.
“Lemme remind you, before you answer, that we are fighting a losing war in Iraq”
As you stated before, that all depends on your perspective.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:11 amTHAT is the only reason you weren’t scared.
No… I already explained this
At the time those planes hit you were positive that where you live wouldn’t be a target?
Boise, Idaho? I was sure.
I live in the Dallas area and you bet I was scared considering I work in the downtown area. I didn’t know which cities would be hit next or if airplanes were their only weapon. I don’t know where you were at on the morning of 9/11 but it must have been somewhere where those terrorists wouldn’t bother hitting.
I wouldn’t have been afraid in other cities, except maybe LA. It was pretty obvious that they wer going after high profile and high populated areas. You can deduce those things if you don’t freak out.
I am too but this is not at all the same when your country is under attack by terrorists. Again you were exposed directly so you have nothing to compare it to.
A lot of things scare you. This explains why you’re frequently operating from your ‘reptilian’ brain (what my doctor friend called the part that we are reduced to in a state of fear). Because you guys on the right frequently view everything in terms of fighting or fleeing, with wide-eyed panic and extreme urgency.
Bush doesn’t WANT you and I to be afraid
Yes he does. It gives him carte blanche. He likes having that power. I can say this because of his actions. A man who doesn’t want people to be afraid wouldn’t always be telling them that they should be. And he does.
but consider neither you or I have REALLY exposed to terrorism we don’t have any thing to relate to.
That’s why we on the left don’t get your fear.
Do the neocons in Israel embellish the terrorist threat in their country in order to drum up support for fighting Hamas? I think not.
I don’t know, and frankly, neither do you. It’s not a good analogy in this case because it’s a very different culture than we have here. We can’t compare to what they do because they have a very different way of life.
You and I live in relative security and have no experience in the exposure to terrorism so for you to say you aren’t afraid is probably true…untill you are directly exposed to it and then I GURANTEE you will change your tune.
Human beings are born with very few instincts. Those that we gain in life are a direct result of the things we’ve experienced. As Deepak Chopra says “We fear most deeply, the things that have already happened to us.” So, I agree with you that if I’d survived 9/11 in NYC, I’d be more afraid of it.
And so, then you have to now explain why people in NYC and DC who are obviously more afraid of terror attacks since they lived thorugh them would vote overwhelmingly for John Kerry – the opposition – in 2004, and not Bush. They believed Kerry would make and keep them safer than Bush. Can you explain that without insulting these people (they are highly educated compared to the rest of teh country – just Google demographic statistics to see how many of the people in these places have an education), or changing what you said?
No but your comparison is in the same general area but not even close to being on target.
It was very much on target. If it weren’t then you could have debunked it rather than criticize me for offering it.
I am not trying to say that mine or your fear of being mugged its irrational, but again your comparison is not a rational one.
I’m not afraid of being mugged.
My comparison must be very valid as you can offer not rebuttal – just an ad hominem in response.
No. That is exactly my point! You have a different perspective than I do because where you live apparently there wasn’t any danger of being attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
Apparently neither was where you live. Dallas wasn’t attacked, or even close to the areas that were attacked. So your fear was perceived. Not real.
Only here in this forum…of course. In the real world, at least from the multiple military personel I have talked to the vast majority of the military is far more conservative than liberal.
Comment by Tracy — June 30, 2006 @ 10:44 am
Only because you talk to more conservative people.
Having been conservative, I used to think the same. As a liberal, I now see that it breaks down differently. It’s not about those who’ve served – but those who have seen live combat. In which case, those who have not fiught tend to be conservative, and those who havem tend to be liberal. Why? Because reality has a liberal bias…
June 30th, 2006 at 11:15 amAnd Tracy, while you are at it, I questions Bush’s rationale for bypassing FISA on warrantless wiretapping. Consider:
Scenario #1:
With the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by Bush, at least one of the calls originates or ends in a foreign country. Bush: “If al Qaeda is calling into America, we want to know.”
Situation: We’ve got a call coming from Iran into NY with the go ahead for an attack tomorrow.
FISA is bypassed because the process is “too slow” and we need to act quickly to prevent the attack.
Scenario #2: Bush says domestic-to-domestic calls are covered by FISA (remember: too slow, too much paperwork).
Situation: A terrorist in LA is calling another one in Dallas to approve an attack, also set for tomorrow.
Isn’t it just as important to act as quickly as possible in that same situation?
Summary: Bush says FISA is too slow on a domestic-to-foreign call, yet is perfectly acceptable on a domestic-to-domestic call.
Explain.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:26 am#108
Bush doesn’t WANT you and I to be afraid.
Yes, he does. That’s why Dick Cheney declared that if Kerry were elected, we would certainly be attacked again.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:28 am#102
He was only in office in for 6 months before 9/11. Clinton had eight years.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:30 amTracy:
My point is that it was alright with the European countries like France and Germany to take care of Milosivic without UN approval
Then why did you make the point by saying Clinton didn’t act Presidential? Seems a funny way to make that point.
Clinton didn’t prevent 9/11 from being plotted and financed in 1999
That would have been difficult to do, considering most of the intelligence chatter occurred in the summer of 2001.
Clinton did prevent the millennium bomber, though. And as much as Cheney likes to point out we have not had a domestic al Qaeda attack betwen 2001 and 2006, we didn’t have one between 1993 and 2001 either. Lots more overseas attacks since 9/11, though. Now, compare what Clinton did to what Bush did before 9/11, when Bush decided he had done enough to deserve a long vacation.
Now then…
“He denied them a base of operations and training ground in Europe.â€
Peanuts compared to the one Bush took out in Afghanistan.
So the Taliban is completely gone and not in control of large parts of the country now? And no al Qaeda training camps just over the mountains in Pakistan (where the London bombers trained)? Or is that not important?
“Clinton stopped a civil war.â€
Only because we as STILL THERE!!! Give us a break!
And how many American soldiers have died there? Less than 2,500? Was the operation a failure or success?
Juan C, I’m not saying clinton was a saint, but I think it is important to show conservatives that Clinton is better than Bush by their own objective standards.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:38 amHe was only in office in for 6 months before 9/11. Clinton had eight years.
Comment by Tracy
You seem perfectly comfortable comparing the six months after 9/11, why not the six months before? Seems a more fair comparison given Bush’s constant harping about the pre/post-9/11 mindset.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am#114
And what was George Bush Bush, involved in politics as governor of Texas from 1994 to 2000 and who likely had presidential aspirations during most if all of that time, doing prior to his first “election”?
Answer: apparently not paying to damned much attention to the world going on around him.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:41 amAs you stated before, that all depends on your perspective.
Comment by Tracy — June 30, 2006 @ 11:11 am
You’re right. And from your perspective, you must have your head in the sand or are hiding under a bed…
June 30th, 2006 at 11:45 am#106
“Clinton will go down in history with a solid foreign policy record as opposed to Duhbya.”
Except for his inaction in regards to terrorism.
Boy, you are one angry woman….pitty. My condolences.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:47 amOoops…
too damned much attention.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:47 amHey…you guys ever read the biography of Pres. Bush on the WH web site? It starts out like this:
Notice that it has no reference to his first “election” but has the exact date of the second one.
I guess it wouldn’t look too good if it said, “George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was appointed president by the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, after a nasty legal battle with candidate Al Gore and sworn into office on…”
June 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#119 It doesn’t matter how many actions we point out, or the terrorists he brought to justice, ideologues will always repeat “Clinton’s inaction on terrorism.” We’ve pointed out some of his actions here. We didn’t mention brokering IRA disarmament, crackdown on domestic terrorism after OKC, imprisoning the blind Sheik and probably a few other things.
Seems to me you give Bush a pass for inaction before 9/11. Why not extend the same courtesy to Clinton, even if you ignore all the things we’ve pointed out to you?
As for inaction, let me point out some things Reagan did that Clinton did not: Putting troops in Beiruit with no plan, arms for hostages, arming the Taliban, is that the sort of action you wanted from Clinton? Bin Laden thanked the Saudis for bringing him American help in the 1980s. They were bad guys then too.
Don’t forget, immediately after 9/11, Bush invited the King of Saudi Arabia to his home, held hands, and kissed him.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#111
“Unless you are going to support a bipartisan congressional inquiry to find out once and for all if any innocent Americans were spied on, YOUR comments are irrelevant.”
I do support an inquiry, but the courts will make the decision as to the matter of legality…not the U.S. Congress….so this really does make your comments irrelevant.
“I was referring to Bush sanctioning the events after the shooting. Did you overlook that word?”
Does it really matter considering it WAS an accident?
“Then we can’t take his statement saying he wanted Bin Laden “dead or alive†as literal either, now can we?”
Well considering his actions speak volumes to the contrary….I believe we can.
“That doesn’t excuse Bush’s inaction.”
I am NOT excusing his inaction.
“I didn’t realize any law had recently been signed by Bush regarding the warrantless wiretapping.”
Considering a court has not rendered an opinion or ruling the legality, not new law is needed. I do however think that new laws need to be written in order to squash any ambiguity in the future.
“…so that the FBI can bust down my door without announcing themselves, an action SC has recently approved, and hopefully not giving me a heart attack in the process.”
“The information posted by the White House does not help terrorists or hamper our efforts at tracking them in any way.”
If it really did it would be posted fool. There is nothing in the link that the terrorists didn’t already know or suspect.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm#123
I do support an inquiry, but the courts will make the decision as to the matter of legality…not the U.S. Congress….so this really does make your comments irrelevant.
So the Congressmen’s views as I posted in #11 really don’t mean anything. In other words they should have kept their mouths shut.
Since Bush is stamping “state secrets” on practically everything he does, I doubt any type of inquiry will occur. But glad to see that you support one.
Does it really matter considering it WAS an accident?
Ok…one more time. Yes, it was an accident but that doesn’t excuse the fact that Cheney refused to be interviewed until the next day and hid behind the reason of national security. You and I know that neither of us would be so lucky.
Well considering his actions speak volumes to the contrary….I believe we can.
Hmmm.
I want bin Laden dead or alive = literal.
I don’t care where he is = not literal.
So says Tracy.
Well of course Bush doesn’t care where he is. He got way more mileage out of the Iraq war than he could have ever imagined had we continued to focus efforts at finding bin Laden. Who in their right mind would have changed presidents in the middle of a war with another country? Advantage: Bush.
Considering a court has not rendered an opinion or ruling the legality, not new law is needed. I do however think that new laws need to be written in order to squash any ambiguity in the future.
You are the one who equated a signing statement to a law about wiretapping. I was just following up on that to make sure I understood where you were coming from.
If it really did it would be posted fool. There is nothing in the link that the terrorists didn’t already know or suspect.
I want Bush and the administration to admit that talking in public about our efforts at tracking terrorists has not been a good thing to do.
Oh, and the SWIFT co-op that everyone is talking about, including the NYT, reportedly has a Web site that gives details that any terrorist would be interested in.
June 30th, 2006 at 1:11 pmOh, and one more thing about warrantless wiretapping, Tracy. I want to know if ordinary Americans were spied on. Apparently you don’t care. I’m so glad you trust the government, one that in the past conspired to attack its own people (see Operation Northwoods) to drum up support for attacking another country, and one that had a participant named Nixon who abused his powers and resigned instead of facing impeachment hearings.
If a court should decide that what Bush did was against the law and he abused his power, what sort of punishment would you support? Impeachment proceedings? Slap on the hand?
June 30th, 2006 at 1:17 pmTRACY,
This is my first ever post onTP. After reading your comments; I now realize why things are the way they are in the USA. FEAR!! I have worked on Broad and Wall St for over 8yrs. I ran on 9/11 from downtown over the Brooklyn Bridge. I still live in NYC. NO FEAR OF TERRORISM…my only FEAR; what people like you and MY Governmnet does in our names of the living and fallen. Stay away from NYC to many different folk for someone so SCARED of an emotion (TERROR) I and many others lived through 9/11 and walk past the WTC every day to work, thought provking..emotional sometimes,but no FEAR no TERROR. LIVE FREE OR DIE
June 30th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#102
He was only in office in for 6 months before 9/11. Clinton had eight years.
Comment by Tracy #114
T’rashy,
If memory serves…
…Clinton was in office only a few months before the FIRST WTC bombing…
…and he managed to…
…capture the blind Sheik and other co-conspirators…
…without killing tens of thousands of innocents, breaking the American treasury, destabilizing the ME, and permanently damaging America’s reputation (abroad and at home)…
…I’d say Clinton wins this comparison hands down…
…and fu*k your WARPED, twisted, spin-filled (Limphog, O’Lielly, Scum Vanity dictated) perspective…
June 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pmAs a liberal, I now see that it breaks down differently. It’s not about those who’ve served – but those who have seen live combat. In which case, those who have not fiught tend to be conservative, and those who havem tend to be liberal. Why? Because reality has a liberal bias…
Comment by unbelievable #111
unbelievable,
…well said…
…what thinking, feeling, intelligent HUMAN BEING….
…supports WAR?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:35 pmDid anyone read the NYT article? Here’s something that stood out:
See, Tracy, this is the problem I have with this. It’s people like this “one person” that I worry about.
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but here’s what I have a problem with: on the one hand, our government tells us that the efforts to track terrorists, whether by wiretapping, monitoring phone records, reading e-mails, or tracking finances, are “targeted” and “limited” yet companies are turning over millions of records to the government.
Bush wants to track down terrorists? I have no problem with that; why should I? Compile a list of known or suspected terrorists, get warrants, and go to the companies that have the info they are looking for and then get it and start investigating. Why does Bush need trillions of individual phone calls to track down a limited number of al Qaeda operatives?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pmWelcome, SBinNYC!!!
June 30th, 2006 at 3:59 pm122–good post
I also remember that when Clinton ordered attacks on suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the Sudan in 1998, he was accused of trying to distract attention from Lewinsky http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/
I don’t know what Tracy said in 1998, but I think some people are trying to have it both ways–Clinton didn’t go after terrorists, Clinton went after terrorists to distract from Lewinsky
What Clinton did with Lewinsky and what he said about Lewinsky was idiotic and irresponsible. But the fact that people tried to bring down his presidency over this — and may have made it harder to go after terrorists without being accused of trying to change the subject– is infuriating
June 30th, 2006 at 4:01 pm#113
“I wouldn’t have been afraid in other cities, except maybe LA.”
Why? You just said you are not afraid of bin Laden launching an attack on you. Oh I forgot you are only afraid for yourself and not others. My bad.
“A man who doesn’t want people to be afraid wouldn’t always be telling them that they should be.”
Bush has said the we should be on guard…not afraid.
“That’s why we on the left don’t get your fear.”
I know you don’t get it….you guys live in a bubble.
“And so, then you have to now explain why people in NYC and DC who are obviously more afraid of terror attacks since they lived thorugh them would vote overwhelmingly for John Kerry”
“Can you explain that without insulting these people (they are highly educated compared to the rest of teh country”
Liberal are liberals no matter what happens to them.
“It was very much on target.”
We will just have to disagee on that one.
“Apparently neither was where you live. Dallas wasn’t attacked, or even close to the areas that were attacked. So your fear was perceived. Not real.”
Why should where I live negate my fear? Again this “I am not afraid because it didn’t affect me attitude” of your is repugnant. You don’t fear for other people’s lives?
“I’m not afraid of being mugged.”
For about the millionth time you aren’t afraid ONLY because of where you live.
“Only because you talk to more conservative people.”
Because the military is far more conservative that liberal. If you look at the ballots cast by military personnel over the years you will understand this.
“In which case, those who have not fiught tend to be conservative, and those who havem tend to be liberal.”
You are going to have to offer some evidence to back up that BS.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#114
“Bush says FISA is too slow on a domestic-to-foreign call, yet is perfectly acceptable on a domestic-to-domestic call.”
When did Bush say it was “perfectly acceptable” on a domestic-to-domestic call?
June 30th, 2006 at 4:08 pm#117
“Then why did you make the point by saying Clinton didn’t act Presidential?”
I said we was not doing his job in regards to fighting terrorism, i.e. he didn’t fully exercise his powers as commander-in-chief.
“That would have been difficult to do, considering most of the intelligence chatter occurred in the summer of 2001.”
No excuse for not having human intelligence trying to track bin Laden and his network considering he had already pulled off multiple other attacks. If you are going to try and blame Bush for not taking action in the few months prior to 9/11 I sure as hell can blame Clinton for not doing anything to DEGRADE Al Quaeda.
“Clinton did prevent the millennium bomber, though.”
LOL! Clinton had absolutely ZERO to do with preventing that attack. Read your history.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4864792/
“So the Taliban is completely gone and not in control of large parts of the country now?”
There aren’t any terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Nice try on attempting to change the subject.
And no al Qaeda training camps just over the mountains in Pakistan (where the London bombers trained)?
Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are allowed to operate, is no the that same as Pakistan.
“And how many American soldiers have died there?”
That’s not the point. The people doing the geocidal killing were part of Serbia’s military and not insurgents made up of powere hungry Baathist sympathizers and international jihad terrorists.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:40 pm#118
“You seem perfectly comfortable comparing the six months after 9/11, why not the six months before?”
We were talking about prevention and there is quite a bit of difference between six months and eight years.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:41 pm#120
Living out in the middle of nowhere I understand your careless attitude toward others that might be a target.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#124
“…or the terrorists he brought to justice”
And just how many was that? How many top al Qaeda lieutenants did Clinton capture or kill during the eight years he was in office….compared to Bush?
You might find this interesting…
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm
“crackdown on domestic terrorism after OKC”
Oh yeah that was a huge problem before and after the OKC bombing. Good one.
“Why not extend the same courtesy to Clinton, even if you ignore all the things we’ve pointed out to you?”
Because he had eight years! Damn! I wouldn’t be bashing Clinton for 9/11 if he were in Bush’s shoes. The whole point is that he did little to weaken al Qaeda during his tenure and we paid a huge price for it.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:53 pm#126
“I don’t care where he is = not literal.”
Care to put that quote in context? It was an insult to bin Laden, get a clue. BTW why would Bush say that and really mean it considering the massive on going man hunt for bin Laden that has been going on non stop for the last five years?
“I want Bush and the administration to admit that talking in public about our efforts at tracking terrorists has not been a good thing to do.”
Again he hasn’t been saying anything that would jeprodize our on going efforts to track these terrorists.
“…reportedly has a Web site that gives details that any terrorist would be interested in.”
Does it announce to “anyone” that they are working closely with the entities that are a part TFTP (Terrorist Finance Tracking Program) which the NY Slimes revealed?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI=
June 30th, 2006 at 5:10 pm#127
“I want to know if ordinary Americans were spied on. Apparently you don’t care.”
I already said I supported an inquiry and you thanked me for supporting it. Please pay attention to your own posts.
Operation Northwoods….thanks president Kennedy.
“If a court should decide that what Bush did was against the law and he abused his power, what sort of punishment would you support? Impeachment proceedings? Slap on the hand?”
FULL IMPEACHMENT!
June 30th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#129
“…and fu*k your WARPED, twisted, spin-filled (Limphog, O’Lielly, Scum Vanity dictated) perspective…”
LOL! I am laughing one inch from your face.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:19 pm#131
“Compile a list of known or suspected terrorists, get warrants, and go to the companies that have the info they are looking for and then get it and start investigating.”
To compile that list you have to look for patterns in order to add a number or person to that list. To do that you need to look at mountains of data, i.e. phone and financial records.
“Why does Bush need trillions of individual phone calls to track down a limited number of al Qaeda operatives?”
The data mining software that the CIA uses looks for patterns among those “trillions” of phone calls.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:25 pmthe pattern’s there isn’t it.. already?
like with global warming – denial stops it.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:30 pmWhy? You just said you are not afraid of bin Laden launching an attack on you. Oh I forgot you are only afraid for yourself and not others. My bad.
You’re not very good at twisting crap people sayto use against them either. Neither did I say or infer any such thing. In fact, it’s liberals who are communistic and social (two words you hate), which mean that we care about others. Your side is opportunistic and egotistic – meaning you are not.
Bush has said the we should be on guard…not afraid.
Nonsense. Don’t be so literal. There are many ways to scare people without saying it verbatim. Sheesh. How don’t you know anything about pyschology? Did you not have to study it in college?
I know you don’t get it….you guys live in a bubble.
Opposite. All that fear has you guys afraid to leave your own livingrooms, much less the country. You live in your own self-imposed cocoon and fail to see the world as it exists.
Liberal are liberals no matter what happens to them.
Perhaps I should have said without insulting my intelligence as well. That’s absurd. SHould have known you’d have nothing.
Why should where I live negate my fear? Again this “I am not afraid because it didn’t affect me attitude†of your is repugnant. You don’t fear for other people’s lives?
Again, you are mis-representing what I said. We were talking about personal fear. Don’t you dare accuse me of not worrying about people I knew who lived in those areas. You are being repugnant to suggest such a thing.
Was I afraid for those peope? Yes. But we weren’t discussing that. I sat at work for almost two weeks with my co-workers watching the televison for news. Hoping for good news. You are a sick person to suggest otherwise.
For about the millionth time you aren’t afraid ONLY because of where you live.
I live in a suburb of Atlanta – one of the most violent cities in the nation in terms of property theft. I’m still not afraid of being mugged. Why should I be? Because I’m white? Oh, I see, you’re afraid of poor black people. Should have known.
Because the military is far more conservative that liberal. If you look at the ballots cast by military personnel over the years you will understand this.
Again, you have to break it down. Most people have served and not seen live combat. There in lies the difference. You seem not to be noticing the overwhleming majority of former Republicans returning from Iraq…
You are going to have to offer some evidence to back up that BS.
Comment by Tracy — June 30, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
Not bullshit. But, okay…
DEMOCRATS
Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) – distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990.
Representative Richard Gephardt, former House Minority Leader – Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71.
Representative David Bonior – Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle – 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72
Former Vice President Al Gore – enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon. More facts about Gore’s Service
Former Senator Bob Kerrey… Democrat… Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam
Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-’47; Medal of Honor, World War Two
Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat
Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea
Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) – U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) – Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) – U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91
Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) – served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) – Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier’s Medal.
Former Representative “Pete” Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit.
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart.
Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor – volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat “V.”
Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star.
Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57
Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate – lengthy military career.
REPUBLICANS
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey – avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay – avoided the draft, did not serve
“So many minority youths had volunteered … that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself.”
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt – did not serve
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume, but not such a friend to cats in Boston.)
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY – did not serve
Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate – did not serve.
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott – avoided the draft, did not serve.
Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld – served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. Served as President Reagan’s Special Envoy to the Middle East and met with Saddam Hussein twice in 1983 and 1984.
GW Bush – decided that a six-year Nat’l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he’s “been to war.” Huh?
VP Cheney – several deferments the last by marriage (in his own words, “had other priorities than military service”)
Former Att’y Gen. John Ashcroft – did not serve; received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
Jeb Bush, Florida Governor – did not serve.
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich – avoided the draft, did not serve
Former President Ronald Reagan – due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role making movies for the Army in southern California during WWII. He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing.
“B-1″ Bob Dornan – avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Weekly article). Enlisted only after the fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm – avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments
Senator John McCain – McCain’s naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Why did the Bush campaign smear him so? At least Senators Cleland (D-GA), Kerry (D-MA), Kerrey (D-NE), Robb (D-VA) and Hagel (R-NE) defended him.
Former Senator Bob Dole – an honorable man. http://www.bobdole.org/bio/wwII.php
Chuck Hagel – two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham – nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations Recently entered plea bargain on felony charges of bribery, etc. etc.
Senator Jeff Sessions U.S. Army Reserves, 1973-1986
Colin Powell. What are we to make of Powell? On the one hand, a long career as a military manager. On the other hand, accused of covering up the My Lai massacre. Back on that first hand, one of the seemingly sane voices in this administration when it comes to Iraq (or at least he used to be). On the other hand, a clear hypocrite (”I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed… managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units…”)
Representative Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), served in USMC in Vietnam; wounded in action.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
June 30th, 2006 at 9:26 pmwhat thinking, feeling, intelligent HUMAN BEING….
…supports WAR?
Comment by big papa — June 30, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
None. War is for cowards and sociopaths. And those who serve in war seem to hate it most of all.
The War is Killing My Friends and I’m Sick of It
From: SPC Fish
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:22 AM
To: soldiers@michaelmoore.com
Subject: I can’t sleep
Thank you! Thank you for caring about us, speaking for us, and telling the truth. A British coalition soldier gave me his copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 while I was serving in Afghanistan. That soldier was involved in a suicide car bomb this month and we took care of him at the hospital. I just got back yesterday and looked you up. I’ve always been a liberal girl, and it ticks me off to no end that Bush is going to try to take away my rights and screw America over with his Christian-influenced “leadership.” And what makes me even more angry is that all my friends and my husband are serving in a bullshit war in Iraq. I served in another bullshit war as a nurse in Kandahar.
I have sent soldiers with missing limbs, with vents breathing for them, with malaria infections, and with burns from IEDs and land mines back to Germany and I don’t know why this had to happen in the first place. We will never find Osama, it’s a lost effort. In Iraq, we are only breeding more terrorists because we won’t leave them alone and let them fix their own problems. We just want to storm on in and make “functional governments” within the Middle East so we can profit from them and their oil. The war is killing my friends and I’m sick of it, I want my husband to come home alive. I’m sick of thinking about the soldiers screaming in the trauma bay before we took them to surgery, and I haven’t even seen combat, only the effects. I watched C-SPAN today and saw my senator, Barbara Boxer, ask Condoleeza Rice why we’re still there if no progress is being made. She could not answer it, her reply was a tap dance of excuses. It made me cry. Thank you for listening to us.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/willtheyevertrustusagain/index.php?id=36
June 30th, 2006 at 9:43 pmFrom: Sgt. [Omitted]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:36 AM
To: soldiers@michaelmoore.com
Subject: a soldier under stop loss in Iraq for his 2nd time
Hello Michael Moore,
I remember watching Fahrenheit 9/11 with my wife late one night before Bush was reelected. I also remember crying at the end when I was watching what we (yes I was there during the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003) had done. I am in the 3rd ID based at FT Stewart, GA. Additionally, I am a translator for the army (you guessed it, I am an Arabic translator). I am currently under stop loss and serving in Tikrit, Iraq.
I am writing this to ask for a copy of your book and also I would like to share something with you… It is something so horrible that I still have nightmares from it. It was during a raid near Abu Ghraib. I was to help interrogate the detainees, and a soldier had opened fire on a truck. There were no weapons in the truck and it wasn’t even driving toward us.
That is when I saw that a little boy (about 3 years old) had been shot in the head and had to interpret for his uncle who was holding him with pieces of skull and brain on his immaculate white shirt splattered with surreal bright red) it actually gets easier to bear… It will never go away (or I have been told) but I can go on with my life now. For about 8 months it was always in the forefront of my mind (constant daydreams about the incident).
It makes me sick still to really think about it, but it is like a memory that I always go back to and wonder around in… You know how you might have something you remember and as time goes by it gets fuzzy? Not this, it stays crystal (I mean fuc**ng crystal) clear the way the corn field next to the truck was, how the shirt looked, the boy’s head, the drink of water I took after….etc… I wish that I never had to see that but even more I wish that the family who’s son had been killed by U.S. soldiers was still alive.
What is worse is that things like that still happen and the media doesn’t even care enough to report it… just collateral damage. The army mental health clinic has told me that to help deal with this memory I should buy some stress tapes and also count to 10 when the memory hits…
Thanks for letting me share that. Feel free to put it on your website if you wish. I am glad that you have spoken out for those of us who have no voice, for I have seen that if we (soldiers) speak out against the atrocities that have been committed, we are silenced by our commanders and leaders.
Please don’t use my name or address on your website.
Thank you for respecting my privacy.
Sgt. [Omitted]
June 30th, 2006 at 9:44 pmFrom: Daniel Goetz
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:44 PM
To: soldiers@michaelmoore.com
Subject: Dude!
Sir,
Thank you for the work you are doing on behalf of the soldiers. I am currently deployed to Iraq. This is my second time here, and I have been stop-lossed. By the time I return to The United States, I will have served more than twelve months past my contract. I hope you continue your work to educate the public, especially now that the conservative right has Been galvanized by the election and perceives itself an unstoppable force in America. Yours is a respected (if not, feared) voice in Washington, and I hope you continue to champion our cause.
The polls don’t show it, but there is a lot more dissension here now compared to 2003. More and more of us are becoming aware of the truth. As we continue to serve (whether it be as volunteers or conscripts), we will examine what our leaders say with more scrutiny. I see it happening here already. It may not make a difference now, but maybe in twenty years, when it’s these men and women that are running for office. The meantime, though, is what worries me.
Daniel Paul Goetz
Much appreciated. Don’t forget us.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:48 pmFrom: Gary Egelston
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:54 PM
Subject: thanks for taking the time to read this
Mr. Moore,
I’m leaving soon to go to Iraq, a place I know I have no business being in. In 2000, I supported Bush because I thought he was a “uniter.”
Four years later, I’m in the military, and I see the destructive path he is walking. My wife and I both came into the Air Force in 2002. There are numerous reasons I joined, but patriotism was at the top of the list. I used to wake up in the mornings and look at myself in the mirror when I was in uniform. I was proud, and loved the fact that I was defending my country. Now, I look in the mirror and feel nothing. I have lost my patriotism, and I feel I have also lost my country. I own all your books, and DVDs, so I’m not asking for anything free, etc. I just wanted to thank you for your work, and your dedication to uncovering the lies of this administration. In my eyes, you, sir, are a hero.
Thanks for your time,
Gary Egelston
June 30th, 2006 at 9:50 pmFrom: [e-mail address omitted]
Thursday, July 8th, 2004 1:44 PM
Subject: [none]
My son has done his duty and spent a year in Iraq. He is due out in February of 2005. They have now told him that he will be deployed back in December and that his military career has been prolonged. He does not want to go back. He has lost 25% of his hearing and he has the shakes. I am very concerned for him as he has been home from base (Colorado Springs) for 3 weeks and all he did was drink. I suspect he might be doing some sort of drug. His wife and child are leaving him. This is what he has to be thankful for after serving his country. He is Canadian by the way. He thought by enlisting in the Army he was doing what was right for himself and his family. Now it seems like he is being punished. The army owns him and does whatever they want with him. I am on a mission to save him from going back to a country we have no business being in. As Commander and Chief of Specialist Jason A Morgese, I will not let him go back there. And I will let George know that I will prevail.
Sincerely,
Brenda L Morgese
Concerned Mother
And you say I’m not concerned for others? You support this goddamned war Tracy – it is YOU who has no concern for others. Don’t you get it? If you truly care about other people you don’t support this kind of bloodshed and destruction. And don’t you dare compare this to WWII. This is NO WWII. This is a lie.
And keep reminding yourself – Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. He is still at large.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:53 pmNone. War is for cowards and sociopaths. And those who serve in war seem to hate it most of all.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:52 pmComment by unbelievable
Well said!!
#143
“In fact, it’s liberals who are communistic and social (two words you hate), which mean that we care about others.”
In theory but not in practice. Alot of talk and no action evidenced by the fact that churches, something that most liberal despise, are by far the most charitable organizations in th country.
“Don’t be so literal. There are many ways to scare people without saying it verbatim.”
When Bush says be on guard and watch what is going on around you, I and definately not you, take that to mean just what he said.
“All that fear has you guys afraid to leave your own livingrooms, much less the country.”
I have been to Canada, Mexico, Belize, Norway, Sweden, and Turkey so don’t even try that one.
“Don’t you dare accuse me of not worrying about people I knew who lived in those areas.”
You don’t seem to.
“I live in a suburb of Atlanta – one of the most violent cities in the nation in terms of property theft.”
Which suburb? I have realtives that live in Smyrna.
“Why should I be? Because I’m white? Oh, I see, you’re afraid of poor black people. Should have known.”
I knew you were racist, otherwise you wouldn’t have brought it up.
“You seem not to be noticing the overwhleming majority of former Republicans returning from Iraq…”
Are re-enlisting or waiting and WANTING to return to finish the mission. This is what I have heard from my conservative friends serving in the 1st Calvary. The liberals on the other hand…. Any comment about what you think the political persuasion of those who are RE-ENLISTING after serving a tour or two in Iraq?
“Not bullshit. But, okay…”
That is a very WEAK list. Here is a COMPLETE list if you care to read it.
http://senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21379.pdf
BTW nice BS site you linked to that omits alot of information.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:32 pm#147
Oh, I am sure that is an authentic letter. How are we suppose to know?
July 1st, 2006 at 9:37 pm#150
“You support this goddamned war Tracy – it is YOU who has no concern for others.”
And I sure as hell will!! I have friends AND family in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you have any friend or family in either of those places? I understand what this world is facing with this rise of Islamic facism….apparently you don’t. I understand that if we don’t put a stop to this barbaric movement not we just might be facing another world war in the future.
BTW how does posting letter from Michael Moore’s website show that you care about the soldiers? How many care packages have you sent to them? I have sent well over 50 personally and my church has sent hundreds.
“And keep reminding yourself – Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. He is still at large.”
Never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and I know bin Laden is still at large, eventhough he is nothing more than a symbol today. You still don’t understand the
July 1st, 2006 at 9:49 pmIn theory but not in practice. Alot of talk and no action evidenced by the fact that churches, something that most liberal despise, are by far the most charitable organizations in th country.
Prove it. The reality is that churches are profitable organizations who don’t pay taxes. The reality is also that blue states are more charitable than red states. Sorry, but you haven’t done any research, are just pulling crap out of the air again.
When Bush says be on guard and watch what is going on around you, I and definately not you, take that to mean just what he said.
And hence your problem in still supporting a very corrupt and incompetent regime. You believe what people say rather than what they do. Lemme tell you, your fear of terrorism is hardcore proof that he’s telling you to be afraid whether or not you realize it.
I have been to Canada, Mexico, Belize, Norway, Sweden, and Turkey so don’t even try that one.
LOL. On what – a guided tour bus? Or stayed in a tourist hotel? Please – that’s only one step better than watching it on television. I know how people like you “travel” – in groups or on package deals.
I’ve been all over the world including places like Rio De Janeiro and parts of Greece and Russia that have US travel advisories. I’ve also been to Northern Ireland. And I did it all with a backpack and my own brain. And I’ve gone most of it alone or with someone else who was less capable of defending me that I was myself. I do it because I’m not afraid.
You don’t seem to.
Because I want us to stop killing American soldiers and innocent people in Iraq? Because I’m anti-war? No Tracy – it is you who does not care unless it is someone you value. Don’t forget, I’m a pacifist vegan because I think beyond myself. And beyond white American humans.
Which suburb? I have realtives that live in Smyrna.
Different direction. Smyrna is a very conservative, upper middle class and white are (they elected Newt Gingrich after all). I lived there for a few years when I was conservative.
I knew you were racist, otherwise you wouldn’t have brought it up.
Actually, you brought it up. I was just calling you on it. Which you didn’t deny.
Are re-enlisting or waiting and WANTING to return to finish the mission. This is what I have heard from my conservative friends serving in the 1st Calvary. The liberals on the other hand…. Any comment about what you think the political persuasion of those who are RE-ENLISTING after serving a tour or two in Iraq?
Your view is clearly willingly limited. Why don’t you go? Hmm? If you support the mission, should you go help finish it?
Did you not read those emails above? There are many more and many more people like that, who know that this war was a lie and that it’s not possible to win it. Just because you know a couple of guys who are in the 30% that are still deluding themselves doesn’t make it a general fact. Go read. More people are against this war than for it.
That is a very WEAK list. Here is a COMPLETE list if you care to read it.
http://senate.gov/ reference/ resources/ pdf/ RS21379.pdf
No it wasn’t. The people in this country who are currently in charge were listed – and none of them have seen combat. The people who are relevent to this conversation are those in charge who waged this war – Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld – NONE of them served.
BTW nice BS site you linked to that omits alot of information.
Comment by Tracy — July 1, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
You only say that because you can’t argue on merits. As usual.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:44 amOh, I am sure that is an authentic letter. How are we suppose to know?
Comment by Tracy — July 1, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
Go to the link and contact those who actually provide addresses and email. That’s how.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:45 amAnd I sure as hell will!! I have friends AND family in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you have any friend or family in either of those places?
That’s the most pathetic thing you can say. You know people there. Why aren’t YOU there? Then you’ll have a platform to preach from. Until then, you aren’t there fighting for a war you support, therefore you are a hypocrite.
I understand what this world is facing with this rise of Islamic facism….apparently you don’t. I understand that if we don’t put a stop to this barbaric movement not we just might be facing another world war in the future.
LOL! You know this because of what? Having lived in the Middle East? Knowing people from Iraq? You are getting that from gas bags like O’Reilly and Limbaugh who want you to believe that nonsense. But that’s all it is – nonsense.
Islam is a branch on the monotheistic tree that included Judiasm and Christianity. They aren’t that much different. I suggest you learn something about the religion before you insult it. Unlike you, I have Muslim friends from Iraq and Iran. And frankly, I’d trust them with my life before I’d trust you.
Besides, how do they have the means to take over the world? They are POOR. Poor people have no money. You can’t wage a war without money. Silly, silly stuff Tracy. But your fear won’t let you do or see anything that isn’t knee-jerk reactionary. Your denial is so deep you don’t even know you’re drowning in it.
Your comment was further proof of your bigotry and racism against anyone who isn’t just like you.
BTW how does posting letter from Michael Moore’s website show that you care about the soldiers? How many care packages have you sent to them? I have sent well over 50 personally and my church has sent hundreds.
While you support a President who cuts funding to them, cuts funding to veterans, has no exit strategy, and lied to put them in harms way? Yeah, I’m sure a box of brownies absolves that.
I support them by writing to my elected officials and demanding that they get these people out of harms’ way. I think making sure they keep their lives and limbs is more important that whatever pitiful tokens you mail them.
Never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and I know bin Laden is still at large, eventhough he is nothing more than a symbol today. You still don’t understand the
Comment by Tracy — July 1, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
But you act like there is no difference when you call Iraq a country of radical Islamists who might one day, maybe, threaten your way of life.
Way, Tracy, you’re really afraid. Afraid to the point that you will condone killing innocent people who’ve done nothing to you. And you refuse to see how cowardly it is to bomb people rather than learn something about them and find out that Osama was a radical extremist. Or should the rest of the world – the 67% who are not Christian equate you to Hitler and come invade Dallas to stop you from one day doing something extreme? Cause really, while I know you are incapable of seeing it – it is NO different.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 amTracy, your link was the BS.
It gave no specifics – just broadly said that the number of those who served included (quote) “during times of peace”. It did not givie any details of who served, when they served, or under what conditions. As I provided.
My information was specific. Yours was very, very general. And it gave no resources as mine did. So we don’t know what “served” actually means. Which is ineffective in a conversation on people who fight in a war tend to be more liberal.
And it also doesn’t change the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have never seen combat. Yet people like you support them blindly on waging war against a tiny nation with no ability to harm us, or inclination for that matter. Do you also go to someone who has never owned a car to fix yours? Go to a doctor who has never practiced medicine? It’s the same absurd philosophy.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:15 am#153
“The reality is that churches are profitable organizations who don’t pay taxes.”
The reality is that organizations that are tax exempt must be NOT FOR PROFIT. If you take the definition of charity to include volunteer work and not just money gifts, churches are the most charitable.
The Salvation Army is the largest charity…1.4 billion in 1999.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54241
“The reality is also that blue states are more charitable than red states.”
Yeah right!
“28% of public charities are located in the South, 24% in the Midwest, 23% in the Northeast, and 22% in the West of the country.”
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005
…a little lop sided considering the population differences….don’t you think?
“You believe what people say rather than what they do.”
Didn’t you point out that Bush said he doesn’t really care where bin Laden is and took that quote literally?
“I know how people like you “travel†– in groups or on package deals.”
I lived in Belize for a year during college (1994-1995). I lived in Vancouver for two years (1999-2000) while working on a large project.
“I know how people like you “travel†– in groups or on package deals.”
People like me? That show how deep your ignorance runs.
“And I did it all with a backpack and my own brain.”
Oh you had your own personal “tour bus”. And extended time in those countries or was it just a “tour”?
“No Tracy – it is you who does not care unless it is someone you value.”
I value everyone including the Iraqi people who you if you had your way would still be living under sanctions and Saddam with absolutely no hope of change.
“Don’t forget, I’m a pacifist vegan because I think beyond myself.”
I am sure you do….
“I lived there for a few years when I was conservative.”
Really? Your parents must be rich. Since you didn’t answer my question before…what suburb of Atlanta do you live in?
“Actually, you brought it up. I was just calling you on it. Which you didn’t deny.”
I brought up the fact that I am afraid of poor black people? Uh, no you did that and made it up out of thin air.
“Your view is clearly willingly limited.”
Yours is non existant…when it comes to the U.S. military.
“Why don’t you go?”
I would have gone to flight school in the Air Force but my eyesight wasn’t good enough. I figured that designing buildings for the military would be the next best way to serve.
“More people are against this war than for it.”
That are currently serving in the U.S. military? I don’t think so, or many of them wouldn’t have re-enlisted.
“The people in this country who are currently in charge were listed”
“You only say that because you can’t argue on merits.”
I say that because you omitted the vast majority of the federal leaders of our country.
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 am#157
“LOL! You know this because of what?”
From what I have seen these people do and no I am not talking about the peace loving Muslims and those practice TRUE Islam. Do you think all of those beheadings and executions were fake? Wouldn’t suprise me.
“I suggest you learn something about the religion before you insult it.”
Insult it? You actually think that those terrorists who are killing in the name of Islam are practicing true Islam? Ask you friends is they think they are.
“I have Muslim friends from Iraq and Iran.”
I sit right across from a co-worker of mine who is Muslim and from Indondesia and according to him bin Laden and the rest for the terrorists in al Qaeda do not represent Islam in ANY way.
“Besides, how do they have the means to take over the world?”
al Qaeda and it’s leaders are not poor FYI. LOL!
“Your comment was further proof of your bigotry and racism against anyone who isn’t just like you.”
You think that me calling the terrorists of al Qaeda barbaric is racist and bigoted? You have some serious mental issues.
“I think making sure they keep their lives and limbs is more important that whatever pitiful tokens you mail them.”
My packages that I send them mean more to them that anything you could possibly do. Why haven’t you sent ANYTHING to the guys in the field? It’s not hard to do…oh, that would require a little effort on your part. Never mind.
“I support them by writing to my elected officials and demanding that they get these people out of harms’ way.”
Which means that you don’t agree with what they signed up to do voluntarily, which means you disagree with with their motives for joining, which means the you DO NOT support them. The biggest liberal lie is that those who don’t support the policy do support the troops. That’ s a crock! Those people who are serving in the military are serving because they believe in the policy. No one is forcing these people to re-enlist and if they felt that strongly about being against the war they wouldn’t.
“But you act like there is no difference when you call Iraq a country of radical Islamists…”
If those radical Islamists do take over Iraq it would threaten the entire world’s way of life. Why do you think that all of the people who practice Islam as a religion are on the side of bin Laden and al Qaeda?
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 amThe reality is that organizations that are tax exempt must be NOT FOR PROFIT. If you take the definition of charity to include volunteer work and not just money gifts, churches are the most charitable.
No, that’s not the reality. It is the law, but I used to work for a firm who also designed churches. They always had more money than most of our other clients. They keep far more than they give away.
The Salvation Army is the largest charity…1.4 billion in 1999.
It’s not a church.
Yeah right!
That’s the best argument you have? Well, it’s still better than many of your others…
“28% of public charities are located in the South, 24% in the Midwest, 23% in the Northeast, and 22% in the West of the country.â€
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/ cfp/ db/ generosity.php?year=2005
You know, biased information isn’t valid. You have to provide independent sources.
…a little lop sided considering the population differences….don’t you think?
No I don’t. I think you didn’t prove anything. The locations of charities doesn’t correlate to the amount of money they receive – or who gives it. the reality is that poor people give the most money (cause they know what it is like to be poor). Has nothing to do with religion. Has everything to do with empathy (not a religious emotion – but a human one).
Didn’t you point out that Bush said he doesn’t really care where bin Laden is and took that quote literally?
He meant it literally. I saw him say it. He didn’t laugh. he was dead serious.
I lived in Belize for a year during college (1994-1995). I lived in Vancouver for two years (1999-2000) while working on a large project.
LOL… Oh yeah, Vancouver is just such a hot spot for terrorists and crime. It’s like one of the safest cities in the world…. And being in college wasn’t being on your own. Thanks for confirming that you don’t actually get out and interact with the real world.
People like me? That show how deep your ignorance runs.
Yes, people like you who would rather kill people who are different than learn to live with them. Or find a compromise. Iraq never threatened us or killed a single American. Yet, you support a war against them. That defines you Tracy. Like it or not, it shows your cowardace and hatred.
Oh you had your own personal “tour busâ€. And extended time in those countries or was it just a “tourâ€?
What? No. Stop trying to twist your way out of the fact that I am more brave than you. Your fear limits your view of the world. The more you talk, the more you validate that.
I value everyone including the Iraqi people who you if you had your way would still be living under sanctions and Saddam with absolutely no hope of change.
Had you been to Iraq to know what life is like there? I have friends from Iraq who were educated there and still have family there. And they have friends. There’s a valid reason they want us to leave. And it isn’t because we’re making things better for them.
Do me a favor – don’t care about my area of the country. If blowing people up is your way of demonstrating your concern, I’d rather live without it.
Really? Your parents must be rich. Since you didn’t answer my question before…what suburb of Atlanta do you live in?
Rich? Opposite. I had two roomates. I’m not giving that detailed information here in a public forum. Post your address.
I brought up the fact that I am afraid of poor black people? Uh, no you did that and made it up out of thin air.
Okay, then who are you afraid of mugging you? Tell me you don’;t lock your car doors when you see a young black man on the sidewalk at a light?
Yours is non existant…when it comes to the U.S. military.
The Marines practically salute me every time I visit Arlington National Cemetery and ask for a map to visit my father’s family members. I come from a military family. They believed in defending the homeland – not waging wars on those who could not harm us. They would be appalled by your cowardly war on Iraq, and I’m glad that most of them are not alive to see it. Those who are detest this administration and what it has done to dishonor our men and women in unifrom.
“I would have gone to flight school in the Air Force but my eyesight wasn’t good enough. I figured that designing buildings for the military would be the next best way to serve.
How convienient. My brother had bad eye sight so he joined the infantry in the Army instead. I’m sure your buildings are so much more helpful in combat than my brother’s actions.
That are currently serving in the U.S. military? I don’t think so, or many of them wouldn’t have re-enlisted.
Many of them didn’t have a choice. The Administration prevented any of them from getting out. You only know a few over there. My brother who served during the first Gulf War knows more people than you do over there. And they are increasing against this war. But I’m sure the guys at Abu Ghraib and those who are murdering civilians are just having a ball.
I say that because you omitted the vast majority of the federal leaders of our country.
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 11:17 am
No I didn’t. And you didn’t post anything to prove otherwise. Your link didn’t list any details or limit to those who served in combat.
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 amFrom what I have seen these people do and no I am not talking about the peace loving Muslims and those practice TRUE Islam. Do you think all of those beheadings and executions were fake? Wouldn’t suprise me.
From what you have seen… You’ve been to Iraq? Or just watched the propaganda you were shown out of context? How do you know the people who were beheaded weren’t tehir version of Zarqawi or bin Laden?
Insult it? You actually think that those terrorists who are killing in the name of Islam are practicing true Islam? Ask you friends is they think they are.
Do you even realize how small of a group of people that is?
I sit right across from a co-worker of mine who is Muslim and from Indondesia and according to him bin Laden and the rest for the terrorists in al Qaeda do not represent Islam in ANY way.
Exactly! So, why go blow up an predominantly Muslim country that hadn’t attacked us or threatened us? Earlier you said it was to fight the radical Muslims. So which is it? The majority are not a threat and your fear is irrational – or the Iraq war was justified bacuse most Muslims are terrorists? Can’t have it both ways.
al Qaeda and it’s leaders are not poor FYI. LOL!
But we attacked Iraq. al Qaeda was in Afghanistan.
Yes, the bin Ladens are wealthy, and on top of that we gave them a lot of American tax dollars so that Osama and the Muhajadeen could fight the Soviets. But, apparently it costs a lot of money to attack a country. Why they do it once in 230 years so far…
But we haven’t captured bin Laden, and the Taliban has actually grown under the actions of the Bush Regime. You are in fact, less safe because Bush attacked an impoverished nation full of peaceful Muslims. You yourself said that about them. Can’t you see it yet? You’re so close to seeing the truth. That Osama was a small anomoly who does not represent anything more than a handful of crazy terrorists. Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with Osama or terrorism.
You think that me calling the terrorists of al Qaeda barbaric is racist and bigoted? You have some serious mental issues.
No, I was refering to you calling most Mulsims al Qaeda supporters as racist and bigotted. Otherwise, why attack Iraq?
My packages that I send them mean more to them that anything you could possibly do. Why haven’t you sent ANYTHING to the guys in the field? It’s not hard to do…oh, that would require a little effort on your part. Never mind.
No Tracy, a package is not more valuable than trying to save tehir lives for an unnecessary war, no matter how much you tell yourself that it is. A package is a pittiance to their lives.
Which means that you don’t agree with what they signed up to do voluntarily,
It means I don’t support the regime taking advantage of what they signe dup to do – DEFEND our country. Iraq was never a threat.
which means you disagree with with their motives for joining, which means the you DO NOT support them.
Opposite. It means I don’t support using their valor to fight pre-emptive wars that were based on lies against a country of people who were nto our enemy.
The biggest liberal lie is that those who don’t support the policy do support the troops. That’ s a crock! Those people who are serving in the military are serving because they believe in the policy. No one is forcing these people to re-enlist and if they felt that strongly about being against the war they wouldn’t.
No, they aren’t there to defend our country. That is the real lie. They are there for George Bush’s lies.
If those radical Islamists do take over Iraq it would threaten the entire world’s way of life. Why do you think that all of the people who practice Islam as a religion are on the side of bin Laden and al Qaeda?
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 11:53 am
They wouldn’t be in Iraq if it weren’t for the damn war! Come on Tracy, you’re smarter than this. Don’t you see how close youare to realizing the truth? That our war was in Afghanistan. That’s where Osama and the radicalists who attacked us were living and being harbored. Those people were the ones who were at the helm of a radical regime. Iraq was not the enemy. There was no link to 9/11. It was Osama amd Afghanistan. Not Iraq.
And yet, we’ve murdered innocent Iraqis, brought their country to ruin, turned it into a battle ground that it never should have been, while Osama is free and the Taliban is thriving more than ever. Put our fear aside, and see that Iraq was a mistake.
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 pm#156
“Which is ineffective in a conversation on people who fight in a war tend to be more liberal.”
You have to be kidding! Those THOUSANDS of vets who re-enlisted that have seen major combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are obviously conservative, so you list of vets that I could count on my fingers doesn’t even compare. BTW Clinton never served in combat.
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 pmTracy,
I’ve already shown how more people who fight in combat become liberal after serving in combat during a war with the list of specific prominent Democrats who have seen wartime combat versus the Republicans who have not. And I’ve already explained why your list was not contradictory. The original point of contention was that those who see war are more liberal as a result than those who merely serve. I’ve provided validation for that. If you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 you’ll see interviews with soldiers who this war turned from Republicans to Democrats… And it’s real.
Clinton didn’t get us into this debacle, nor is he currently running the government in any capacity. He’s as pointless to this discussion as me pointing out to you that Lincoln didn’t serve. We’re talking about the present situation in Iraq.
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:02 pm#159
“It is the law, but I used to work for a firm who also designed churches. They always had more money than most of our other clients.”
The money was used for the church and it’s activities, i.e. it was NOT FOR PROFIT. Churches having more money that most of your clients? I use to work for HH Architects in Dallas, that did mostly church work and they always had to RAISE the money, and most of the time they were short and we had to VE the design 99% of the time.
“It’s not a church.”
It’s Christian organization.
http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/85256DDC007274DF85256B76006FA193?openDocument
“With its Christian heritage and motivation, The Salvation Army continues its unique service to all people in the name of Christ.”
“You have to provide independent sources.”
And just why is not the link I provided independent?
“The locations of charities doesn’t correlate to the amount of money they receive”
Money received by most charities is given by the local population, so yes location have alot to do with it.
“the reality is that poor people give the most money”
Which would be all those poor, red, southern states.
“He meant it literally. I saw him say it. He didn’t laugh. he was dead serious.”
You must be blind then because he had a joking tone to his voice and his face when he answered that reporter’s question.
“Thanks for confirming that you don’t actually get out and interact with the real world.”
Belize isn’t exactly the safest county in the world. Research…you need to do some.
“Yet, you support a war against them.”
I don’t support war against the Iraqi people. Like most of the Iraqi people I am against those who want to see things back to the way they were under Saddam.
“Stop trying to twist your way out of the fact that I am more brave than you”
I lived in Belize for a year and since you just take a casual stroll through various countries proves that I am far more courageous than you.
“Had you been to Iraq to know what life is like there?”
Ask you friends if they think that things were good under Saddam and if they had a choice would rather him still be in power.
“I’m not giving that detailed information here in a public forum.”
I live in Allen, TX…basically a suburb of Dallas. Where is you so-called courage?
“Okay, then who are you afraid of mugging you?”
Anyone who had the inclination of doing so.
“I come from a military family.”
So do I.
“I’m sure your buildings are so much more helpful in combat than my brother’s actions.”
They provide a facility to train for that combat.
“Many of them didn’t have a choice. The Administration prevented any of them from getting out.”
Stop with the BS! Stop loss is not the same thing as forced re-enlistment. Get you facts straight.
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:13 pmThe money was used for the church and it’s activities, i.e. it was NOT FOR PROFIT. Churches having more money that most of your clients? I use to work for HH Architects in Dallas, that did mostly church work and they always had to RAISE the money, and most of the time they were short and we had to VE the design 99% of the time.
You should have seen the churches… Seems like a sin to use that money on a mega church.. But I was talking about the churches using money to fund political races. That is profit if they are giving it to an unrelated cause.
It’s Christian organization.
Still not a church.
“With its Christian heritage and motivation, The Salvation Army continues its unique service to all people in the name of Christ.â€
Good, you have one. Too bad they are the minority and not the majority.
And just why is not the link I provided independent?
Because it’s biased.
Money received by most charities is given by the local population, so yes location have alot to do with it.
No it doesn’t. Again – it has to do with how many people- not how many branches.
Which would be all those poor, red, southern states.
No. The blue states are the poorest. People here in Georgia are far better off than people in California when I lived there. By a long, long shot. It’s cheap to live here because we have so many natural resources.
You must be blind then because he had a joking tone to his voice and his face when he answered that reporter’s question.
Not even close. He was irritated at the reporter and was frowning. I just saw it again yesterday when i was watching Fahrenheit 9/11. He was clearly very annoyed that the question had been asked, and had responded in a serious and derogatory tone.
Belize isn’t exactly the safest county in the world. Research…you need to do some.
No I don’t. It’s pretty safe.
I don’t support war against the Iraqi people. Like most of the Iraqi people I am against those who want to see things back to the way they were under Saddam.
But you have to support the war that removed him then, and that war cost at least 50,000 Iraqi lives so far.
I lived in Belize for a year and since you just take a casual stroll through various countries proves that I am far more courageous than you.
Casual stroll? Hardly. And you were on a college campus! Again, you twist the reality to make yourself look like less of a chicken shit because you’ve never actually been anywhere on your own. I have. Many times. In total, for much longer than your one year.
Ask you friends if they think that things were good under Saddam and if they had a choice would rather him still be in power.
Yes, and yes.
Again, have you been to Iraq?
I live in Allen, TX…basically a suburb of Dallas. Where is you so-called courage?
Nothing to do with courage, but privacy. It’s a lower middle class area.
Anyone who had the inclination of doing so.
Too vague. be specific.
So do I.
You don’t act like it.
They provide a facility to train for that combat.
Again, so much more helpful than my brother actually putting his life on the line. You are very delusional if you think I don’t see through your cowardly excuses for not being in iraq.
So, what’s stopping you now? You can pull a trigger and don’t need perfect vision for being on the ground. Why don’t you go now?
Stop with the BS! Stop loss is not the same thing as forced re-enlistment. Get you facts straight.
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Not BS. It’s the truth. The thing you’re deathly (unfortuantely for the Iraqis) .afraid of…
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:34 pm#162
“From what you have seen… You’ve been to Iraq?”
I have friends in Iraq right now that say you are full of crap if you think that beheadings by terrorists are fake and don’t happen. You absolutely live in a bubble. Again are you saying the those beheadings are fake and nothing more than U.S. military propoganda?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/21/content_393391.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html
“No, I was refering to you calling most Mulsims al Qaeda supporters as racist and bigotted. Otherwise, why attack Iraq?”
Those that are promoting the violence in Iraq are al Qaeda supporters or supporters of the former regime.
“Exactly! So, why go blow up an predominantly Muslim country that hadn’t attacked us or threatened us?”
You seem to equate the Saddam’s regime as representative of the Iraqi people….which he wasn’t.
“Earlier you said it was to fight the radical Muslims.”
Trying to get democracy to work in Iraq is directly related to fighting the radical Muslims. If they didn’t have a problem with possibly happening in Iraq they wouldn’t be trying to start a civil war.
“But we attacked Iraq. al Qaeda was in Afghanistan.”
al Qaeda is EVERYWHERE, Europe, even in the U.S. as evidenced by those men arrested in Miami just recently. For anyone to say that al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq is just plain stupid.
“the Taliban has actually grown under the actions of the Bush Regime.”
Prove it.
“A package is a pittiance to their lives.”
Well since you have never put out the effort to send one and in turn receive a thank you….I understand why you would ignorantly think that. Ask some of your family members that supposedly served in combat if they appreciated a care package they received from the states.
I”t means I don’t support the regime taking advantage of what they signe dup to do – DEFEND our country.”
Many of them signed up and re-enlisted AFTER Bush entered office in 2000.
“No, they aren’t there to defend our country. That is the real lie.”
Well I guess you must think that all of these soldiers are just plain stupid. I am sure they appreciate the insult.
“That’s where Osama and the radicalists who attacked us were living and being harbored.”
Right and after we kicked them out of Afghanistan where do you think that all of these radicals would retreat to? Iran, Iraq, Pakistan?
“Put our fear aside, and see that Iraq was a mistake.”
Time will tell.
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 pm#164
“I’ve already shown how more people who fight in combat become liberal after serving in combat…”
It was a very SMALL list
“The original point of contention was that those who see war are more liberal as a result than those who merely serve.”
Which you list has not proven, considering it’s extremely limited scope.
“If you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 you’ll see interviews with soldiers who this war turned from Republicans to Democrats… And it’s real.”
And a Moore WANTS you to believe that the majority of soldiers coming back from Iraq are against the war. Again can you prove the the majority that are re-enlisting in the military after serving in Iraq are liberal and not use that BS stop loss argument?
“We’re talking about the present situation in Iraq.”
Then don’t bring up an irrelevant fact that Bush never saw combat, even though Clinton sent troops into Bosnia to die.
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:55 pmI have friends in Iraq right now that say you are full of crap if you think that beheadings by terrorists are fake and don’t happen. You absolutely live in a bubble. Again are you saying the those beheadings are fake and nothing more than U.S. military propoganda?
You really should stop trying to speak for other people. You don’t do it very well.
So, your two friends in Iraq know that the people who were beheaded before they arrived weren’t people who had committed crimes and were being subjected to capital punishment (which you do doubt support)? Nonsense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 06/ 20/ AR2006062000242.html
Washington Post? Please.
Those that are promoting the violence in Iraq are al Qaeda supporters or supporters of the former regime.
The small handful prior to our attacking Iraq. Please… Don’t try to exaggerate it into an epidenic to justify your fears. Most Muslims did not support Osama or his actions. However, once upon a time, Donald Rumsfeld did…
You seem to equate the Saddam’s regime as representative of the Iraqi people….which he wasn’t.
But Saddam is alive and over 50,000 Iraqis are dead. Saddam has been in captivity for quite a while now and yet we are still killing innocent Iraqi people. Open your eyes to reality. The world’s graetest military couldn’t remove a couple of people without killing tens of thousands? Wake up Tracy. You’re being led by the nose to a very bad place because you think it will make you safer.
Trying to get democracy to work in Iraq is directly related to fighting the radical Muslims. If they didn’t have a problem with possibly happening in Iraq they wouldn’t be trying to start a civil war.
Your attempts to justify this attack on Iraq are sad… Iraq was not in the middle of a Revolution. I’ve given you in our prior conversation other countries who were in far worse shape than Iraq and who we ignore or have ignored.
Don’t you see that forcing Democracy on a culture that is not complimentary to it is asking for trouble? Democrcay doesn’t exist in the Middle East because they are a very patriarchal culture who wants a heirachical government.
I feel like I’d have better luck explaining this to my cats. You’ve closed your mind and there is not possibility that this war was wrong. It was horribly wrong, and your support of it makes you just as bad as the corrupt regime who attacked a country that was neither revolting nor a threat to us. That is disgusting.
al Qaeda is EVERYWHERE, Europe, even in the U.S. as evidenced by those men arrested in Miami just recently. For anyone to say that al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq is just plain stupid.
LOL! Oh my god! LOL! That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Now replace that with “The boogeyman” and you’ll see that you’ve been conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs to tremble upon command.
Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq. Out attack on Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and you trying to say so after the fact to hide the fact that you are a coward is laughable – yet mostly damgerous. Its’ why you and people like you will allow Bush to search you naked in public if it will just keep the scary people away.
I hate to break it to you, as you’re already cowering in the corner as it is – but nothing can guarantee you safety. You will die. And no one can either stop that or make sure you get to live a long life. Life comes with inherent risk and uncertainity that you cannot always be safe from harm. And killing people in other countries does help. Just makes you more at risk…
Prove it.
Read the news. CNN has plenty.
Well since you have never put out the effort to send one and in turn receive a thank you….
Oh yea, you getting thanked si SO much more satisfying than being an anonymous supporter who wants to save their lives. Yes, i forgot – all about you feeling like you’re doing something because you’re too afraid to go to Iraq and put your ass where your big fat mouth is.
I understand why you would ignorantly think that. Ask some of your family members that supposedly served in combat if they appreciated a care package they received from the states.
Don’t start. An ex-boyfriend was a Navy pilot during the military action in Bosnia. I used to send shitloads of stuff thathe would give to the enlisted guys all the time. Sure they appreciated it, but no where near the leve of appreciate those guys have when they come home alive. No where close.
Many of them signed up and re-enlisted AFTER Bush entered office in 2000.
Many? Prove it.
Well I guess you must think that all of these soldiers are just plain stupid. I am sure they appreciate the insult.
I’m sure your logic is not only fallacious but something you should throw away.
Right and after we kicked them out of Afghanistan where do you think that all of these radicals would retreat to? Iran, Iraq, Pakistan?
Kicked them out? That’s why we’ve been fighting there for the last 3.5 years then? Because we won there? Nonsense.
If they went to Iraq, it was because we made it welcome to them. Under Saddam, they stayed out. Seriously. Saddam was an evil bastard to keep them out. We put in a cradboard government who can’t stop their own people from killing one another. Or secure tehir borders. Yes, much better than before Saddam. How do you sleep at night?
Time will tell.
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
It already has.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pmIt was a very SMALL list
No it wasn’t. It was rather long.
Which you list has not proven, considering it’s extremely limited scope.
No it isn’t. And you can’tprovide anything as specific to the contrary.
And a Moore WANTS you to believe that the majority of soldiers coming back from Iraq are against the war. Again can you prove the the majority that are re-enlisting in the military after serving in Iraq are liberal and not use that BS stop loss argument?
So what if that’s what he wants to show? It happens to be the truth.
It’s not BS. No matter how much you try to ad hominem attack it – it’s the reality.
The problem is that the people who keep the actual statistics are biased. Just like the people keeping up with unemployment aren’t counting everybody.
But if you listen for long enough, and you talk to enough people, it’s pretty clear that there are more people against the war than for it.
Then don’t bring up an irrelevant fact that Bush never saw combat, even though Clinton sent troops into Bosnia to die.
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
Bush IS relevent. He’s the one who is at the helm. That not only makes him relevent, but the most relevent person in this entire debacle.
And what’s also relevent is the fact that because he never saw real combat, he neither had an exit strategy nor was capable of understanding that war should never be waged without justification. And he had none.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:39 pm#166
“You should have seen the churches… Seems like a sin to use that money on a mega church”
They have over 25,000 members so a 7,000 seat sanc
“But I was talking about the churches using money to fund political races.”
Which specific churches use member’s donations to give to political candidates?
“Good, you have one. Too bad they are the minority and not the majority.”
They are the largest charity in the U.S.
“Because it’s biased.”
How?
“No I don’t. It’s pretty safe.”
So you have lived their?
“But you have to support the war that removed him then, and that war cost at least 50,000 Iraqi lives so far.”
To get rid of a man who has killed far more of his own people…
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773
“No. The blue states are the poorest.”
Try again.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R07T040.htm
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/05/median_income_d.html
“You are very delusional if you think I don’t see through your cowardly excuses for not being in iraq.”
What is your cowardly excuse even before Bush was in office? I know you are more than old enough.
“Not BS. It’s the truth.”
Please explain the difference between stop loss and re-enlistment. I will give you one chance before I put you in your place.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:02 pmThey have over 25,000 members so a 7,000 seat sanc
No – it was like a complex. Gross and bloated. I detest organized religion. You’re trying to saythat people are not moral unless a church shows them how to be. That’s bullshit. Plain and simple. The proof is that there are proportionately more religious people in prison than non-religious people. 15% non-religious in reality but less than 1% in prison. If anything. religious folks are less moral.
They are the largest charity in the U.S.
So what? It’s still not a church. Therefore you can’t include it in churches being the most charitable.
How?
They prepared a report about themselves… Hello?
So you have lived their?
I don’t have to live there to read statistics. You were safer there than you are in some US cities.
To get rid of a man who has killed far more of his own people…
He didn’t kill anybody actually. And, compared to others out there, he hasn’t killed more of his own people than we do here. Again, over 16,000 U.S. citizens killed other U.S. citizens last year alone…. A little hypocritical for us to judge him when we ourselves are far more violent.
So, will you use the same twisted logic when Bush has killed more American soldiers than Osama did people on 9/11?
Try again.
Don’t have to I was right the first time.
What is your cowardly excuse even before Bush was in office? I know you are more than old enough.
Forcing me, a pacifist, to fight is the same as forcing you to have an abortion. I wondered if you would be silly enough to try to twist that.
Please explain the difference between stop loss and re-enlistment. I will give you one chance before I put you in your place.
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
I know the difference. And I’m telling you that your two friends in Iraq don’t speak for the entire military.
I’ve been putting you in your place for days now. You just refuse to accept it because then you’ll have to admit that you are condoning the deaths of thousands of innocent people for nothing.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:25 pm#169
“So, your two friends in Iraq know that the people who were beheaded before they arrived”
Yes they have seen video confiscated from terrorists hideouts that shows it in graphic detail them decapitating captured Iraqi soldiers.
“Washington Post? Please.”
You deny what is in the story?
“The small handful prior to our attacking Iraq.”
Small handful? They number
“…and yet we are still killing innocent Iraqi people.”
The innocent Iraqi people are not targets of the U.S. military, neither were any of the other civilians that were killed in any other engagement that the U.S. was involved in.
“Read the news. CNN has plenty.”
The Taliban is not as powerful today as before we invaded Afghanistan.
“Yes, i forgot – all about you feeling like you’re doing something because you’re too afraid to go to Iraq and put your ass where your big fat mouth is.”
The soldiers appreciate it far more than you bad mouthing them.
“I’m sure your logic is not only fallacious but something you should throw away.”
I am not the one calling them stupid for re-enlisting.
“Kicked them out?”
There aren’t any terrorist training camps in Afghanistan anymore…unless you can point one out for us.
“Yes, much better than before Saddam.”
So you are diagreeing with the majority of Iraqi’s that are glad to see Saddam gone from power.
“It already has.”
For those who have no patience.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:46 pm#170
“No it wasn’t. It was rather long.”
Less than 20 is long? I could provide a list that numbers in the thousands if a I had access to names and voting records.
“And you can’tprovide anything as specific to the contrary.”
Would you deny that the military overwhelmingly votes Republican? The fact that the Democrats tried to get thousands of military ballots thrown out in the 2000 election proves it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/12/MNGO497KG31.DTL
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
“It happens to be the truth.”
It’s not true that the majority of the soldiers are against the war than for it.
“..it’s pretty clear that there are more people against the war than for it.”
We are talking specifically about military people. Nice try to spin your way out of facts.
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm#172
“No – it was like a complex. Gross and bloated.”
Not for 25,000 members
“I detest organized religion.”
Of course you do. It reinforces your parent’s failure.
“You’re trying to saythat people are not moral unless a church shows them how to be.”
No I am not, I am just presenting facts.
“If anything. religious folks are less moral.”
Than you? LOL!
“Therefore you can’t include it in churches being the most charitable.”
What other TYPE of charity organization is more so? Including volunteer service, usable goods (diapers, food, clothing), and money.
“They prepared a report about themselves…”
Where is this “report”? This is the organization we are referring to…
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
“I don’t have to live there to read statistics.”
Statistics don’t tell the WHOLE truth…or did you conveniently forget your own statements?
“He didn’t kill anybody actually.”
Then neither has Bush, hypocrite. I guess ordering gassing and opposition assinations doesn’t count in your book.
“Forcing me, a pacifist, to fight is the same as forcing you to have an abortion.”
No excuse, especially when you expect other to defend your right to be a pacifist. You don’t have to serve in a combat role, one I hope others in the military would never have to rely on you to do.
“I know the difference.”
What is the difference?
“And I’m telling you that your two friends in Iraq don’t speak for the entire military.”
The speak for the VAST majority.
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:36 pmYes they have seen video confiscated from terrorists hideouts that shows it in graphic detail them decapitating captured Iraqi soldiers.
Soldiers? You were claiming that we bombed Iraq to save the civilians from Saddam. We weren’t talking about battle. We were talking about justification for attacking Iraq. Not for defending them. Can’t have it both ways…
Small handful? They number
You can’t use invisible numbers…
The innocent Iraqi people are not targets of the U.S. military, neither were any of the other civilians that were killed in any other engagement that the U.S. was involved in.
That is a bold faced lie to absolve yourself of the fact that there are thousands of innocents slaughtered in this unwarranted war. 50,000 was the last official number. You can’t tell me that is unavoidable…
The Taliban is not as powerful today as before we invaded Afghanistan.
You’re right – they are more powerful. See how quickly they replaced Zarqawi and how we’re having a tough time fighting them in Iraq now. where they showed up AFTER we did.
The soldiers appreciate it far more than you bad mouthing them.
I didn’t bad mouth them… oh, wait, I forgot wanting them to come home alive and not wounded is your definition of not caring. However do you function in society in such denial of reality?
I am not the one calling them stupid for re-enlisting.
Neither am I. You’re just making shit up now because you’re running on empty.
There aren’t any terrorist training camps in Afghanistan anymore…unless you can point one out for us.
Don’t be asinine. Our own military says there are – and that’s why they are there still fighting.
So you are diagreeing with the majority of Iraqi’s that are glad to see Saddam gone from power.
I’m disagreeing with you that a majority of them think they are better off now.
For those who have no patience.
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
No, I have no patience for 2500+ dead soldiers and over 50,000 dead Iraqis over nothing. The fact that you do is disgusting.
Less than 20 is long? I could provide a list that numbers in the thousands if a I had access to names and voting records.
If in one hand and dog poop in the other. I’m sure you could also leap tall building in a single bound with the same access.
It was more than 20. It was 45. You know that when they poll people they don’t call everyone in the country right?
Would you deny that the military overwhelmingly votes Republican? The fact that the Democrats tried to get thousands of military ballots thrown out in the 2000 election proves it.
I will admit that you can’t stay on topic. The point of contention was that those who see combat are more likely to be liberal than those who serve and do not. I proved that with the list of the leading Democrat and Republicans in office who have and have not seen combat. The Democrats have seen more war than the Republicans.
It’s not true that the majority of the soldiers are against the war than for it.
Again, stop trying to move the goal posts. You don’t win by cheating. Try to focus. It’s the next line what I said:
“..it’s pretty clear that there are more people against the war than for it.â€
We are talking specifically about military people. Nice try to spin your way out of facts.
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
We were talking specificaly about those who have served versus those who haven’t. I didn’t spin anything. They are people. I’ll rephrase it, unlike you, to stand by the same fact that more people who’ve served in comabt are against war than for it. Everyone I’ve ever known personally who fought in war came back against it.
I don’t need proff, but it sure souuds like you do. Enlist now. When you get back, we’ll see where you stand.
Not for 25,000 members
You worked on the projects my firm was working on? No. I was speaking of them, not your projects, as I have no idea what your projects entailed.
Of course you do. It reinforces your parent’s failure.
Failure that I turned out to be a law abiding citizen who opposes unnecessary violence? No, you’re talking about the failure of your parents. My parents didn’t raise a coward who send other people to fight pointless wars for him. They raised someone who thinks for herself and doesn’t need oraginzed religion to tell me right from wrong. It’s pretty much common sense…
No I am not, I am just presenting facts.
No you aren’t. The facts are that there are proporationately fewer non-religious people in prison than religius people. That makes religious people not only less moral but hypocritical.
Than you? LOL!
Yep. I don’t support killing other people for no reason. I also don’t kill other conscience life forms to eat. I’ve never had an abortion. Never abused a child (priest reference there). Never killed anyone. Never raped anyone. Never cheated on anyone in any relationship. Never assaulted anyone. Never stabbed a friend in the back. And never stole anything from anyone. I don’t need fear of eternal damnation either. That makes me more moral because i do it by choice and not by fear or manipulation.
What other TYPE of charity organization is more so? Including volunteer service, usable goods (diapers, food, clothing), and money.
It’s about individual people giving. Not about organizations. As I’m pretty sure there is no “Poor People” charity. And without one, you can’t make a comparision.
Where is this “report� This is the organization we are referring to…
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Biased information
Statistics don’t tell the WHOLE truth…or did you conveniently forget your own statements?
They tell enough. I’ve been in the area enough to know (scuba diver), that it’s not the same as you going to the Middle East. Not by a long shot. I might feel otherwise if you were in Honduras – but really, Belize is closer to Cancun. And I’ve been there. You can’t fool me on this one.
Then neither has Bush, hypocrite. I guess ordering gassing and opposition assinations doesn’t count in your book.
Yo are the one refusing to compare the two. Bush is no btter than Saddam, yet you support the killing of one of them and the blind worship of theother. Simply based on the origin of your births. Silly, really. A tyrannical killer is a tyrannical killer. In my book both are evil men.
No excuse, especially when you expect other to defend your right to be a pacifist. You don’t have to serve in a combat role, one I hope others in the military would never have to rely on you to do.
Not an excuse. Is the difference between standing on principals (me not killing) and you standing on fear. I don’t expect anything Tracy, so stop putting words in my mouth so you can punch a strawman. But, take your own advice. You definitely expect these people in the military to protect you from theboogeyman, and yet all youcan do is build buildings? LOL! Hypocrite.
The speak for the VAST majority.
Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
No they don’t. They only speak for themselves. Two people do not represent a vast majority.
I borrowed this from another poster, because well, he’s a Republican who is now againstthe war. I thought it appropriate that you hear this from someone who is a conservative against the war and why:
“e barely have enough troops for Iraq as it is. We can’t get enough National Guard troops to assume responsibilities on our southern border. Out of sheer desperation, the U.S. Army raised the enlistment age limit first from 34 to 40, and now intends to raise it to 42 (hey, that must be how they want to solve the Social Security problem – sign up the AARPsters and send them to fight and die in imperial wars).”
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:15 pm—Anchorage Activist
Correction:
I might feel otherwise if you were in Honduras (meant to say Colombia)
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:21 pmSince you value WaPo enough to reference them, here’s their take on your war on Al Qaeda
Al-Qaeda, Still in Business
By Peter Bergen
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B01
Over the past four years, key members of the Bush administration have claimed that al-Qaeda is “on the run” (Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice), “disrupted” (George Tenet) or “decimated” (President Bush). At the same time, however, significant terrorist attacks around the world have dramatically increased since Sept. 11, 2001, most of them conducted by militant Islamists. How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
A new narrative that purports to answer that question has emerged: Yes, al-Qaeda as an organization is severely impaired, but it has been replaced by a broader ideological movement made up of self-starting, homegrown terrorists who have few formal links to al-Qaeda but are motivated by a doctrine that can be called “Binladenism.” Recent examples would include the militants in Madrid who bombed commuter trains in March 2004 and killed 191 people, or the seven terrorist wannabes recently arrested in Miami in connection with an alleged plot to blow up federal buildings. They had embraced al-Qaeda’s doctrine of destruction, yet had no ties to the terrorist group.
However, according to five veteran U.S. counterterrorism officials I’ve spoken with recently, al-Qaeda the organization remains a real threat. One longtime government terrorism analyst points to the four suicide attacks in London last July 7 that killed 52 people as evidence of the organization’s resilience. “At a minimum, this was an al-Qaeda-supported operation,” the analyst told me. And al-Qaeda’s leaders don’t seem to be feeling the heat of the “war on terror.” On Thursday, Osama bin Laden released his third audiotape in three months, while his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has appeared on an unprecedented number of videotapes since the second week of June — averaging one a week.
So while the rapid spread of al-Qaeda’s ideology in the past two years — partly fueled by the Iraq war — should be of considerable concern, it would be quite wrong to conclude that al-Qaeda the organization is down for the count. Indeed, if the bombings in London are any indication, it may be staging a comeback.
The London attacks of one year ago have generally been portrayed as the work of four young British men of Pakistani and Jamaican descent from the north of England — distinguished only by their utter ordinariness — who embraced radical Islamist ideology and managed to carry out the deadliest terrorist attack on British soil in history without outside help. The Sunday Times of London even opined that “the new breed of unaffiliated terrorist is potentially far more dangerous than the IRA or even al Qaeda because he is almost impossible to identify.”
But the more you delve into the London bombings, the more they look like a classic al-Qaeda plot. The British government’s official account of the attacks — issued by the Home Office two months ago — provides a revealing picture. It explains that the presumed ringleader, Mohammed Sidique Khan, visited Pakistan in 2003 and 2004, spending several months there. On one of those trips, he aimed “to cross the border and fight in Afghanistan,” the report stated. (Presumably, Khan did not plan to fight alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but rather to join the Taliban or al-Qaeda to kill Americans.)
The report goes on to note that Khan “had some contact with al Qaida figures” in Pakistan, and is “believed to have had some relevant training in a remote part of Pakistan, close to the Afghan border” during his two-week visit in 2003. The British government did not specify what sort of training he received, but given that the London bombs were made of highly efficient explosives that can’t be readily made from recipes on the Internet, it is probable that the training was in the manufacturing of bombs. According to the report, Khan was also in “suspicious” contact with individuals in Pakistan in the four months immediately before the London attacks. Taken together, Khan’s travels and contacts in Pakistan strongly suggest an al-Qaeda role in the operation.
Khan also appeared on a videotape that aired on al-Jazeera two months after the suicide attacks — an important fact to which the British report did not give sufficient weight. “I’m going to talk to you in a language that you understand,” Khan said on the tape, speaking in the broad brogue of his native Yorkshire. “Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood.” He goes on to describe bin Laden and Zawahiri as “today’s heroes.” Appearing on the same videotape, Zawahiri trumpeted al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the London bombings. As a veteran U.S. counterterrorism official told me, “Zawahiri does not take credit for things that he hasn’t done.”
On the videotape, Zawahiri referenced a prior al-Qaeda threat to explain the targeting of London, saying “Didn’t . . . Sheik Osama bin Laden offer you a truce?” — a reference to the al-Qaeda leader’s April 2004 proposal of a peace agreement with those European countries willing to pull out of Iraq. Britain is the most prominent member of that coalition. Bin Laden offered a three-month grace period before the truce expired in July 2004. A year later, the four bombers blew themselves up in London.
But the key piece of evidence overlooked in the British government report is that both Khan and Zawahiri’s statements were made on a videotape bearing the distinctive logo of al-Sahab (”the clouds”), which is al-Qaeda’s television production arm. Al-Sahab’s first tape, a two-hour al-Qaeda infomercial, debuted on the Internet in the summer of 2001, signaling that a major anti-American attack was in the works. Since then, al-Sahab has continued to release key statements from al-Qaeda leaders. Khan’s appearance on the videotape strongly suggests that he met up with members of al-Qaeda’s media team based on the Afghan-Pakistan border, probably in the tribal area of Waziristan. There is much we still don’t know about Khan’s activities in Pakistan, but additional information is likely to point toward further contact with members of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
The rapidly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan over the past year is also, in part, the responsibility of al-Qaeda. The use of suicide attacks and makeshift bombs and the beheadings of hostages — all techniques that al-Qaeda perfected in Iraq — are methods that the Taliban has increasingly adopted in Afghanistan, making much of the south of the country a no-go area.
Hekmat Karzai, an Afghan terrorism researcher at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore, points out that suicide bombings were rare in Afghanistan until 2005, when 21 such attacks took place. This year has already seen at least 16. In addition, Karzai reports that two of al-Qaeda’s “most able” commanders — Khalid Habib, a Moroccan, and Abd al Hadi, an Iraqi — have been appointed to run its operations in southeastern and southwestern Afghanistan. These developments suggest that al-Qaeda is regrouping and strengthening along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
And, of course, bin Laden and Zawahiri remain at large in that border region, issuing a stream of tapes aimed at inflaming their supporters around the world. Zawahiri, for example, released a video last week urging further attacks on U.S. and other coalition forces in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, bin Laden’s ongoing influence over al-Qaeda’s affiliates was confirmed after the death last month of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq. Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, al-Qaeda’s new leader in Iraq, quickly released a statement on a jihadist Web site pledging allegiance to bin Laden: “We are at your disposal, ready for your command.” Muhajer has longstanding ties to Zawahiri; they have both been members of Egypt’s ultra-violent Jihad Group for more than two decades. A U.S. intelligence official told me that the intelligence community’s recognition of bin Laden and Zawahiri’s continued importance to Islamist terrorists worldwide has led to a renewed push in the past two months to locate them.
Almost five years after the attacks on Washington and New York, al-Qaeda not only remains in business in its traditional stronghold on the Afghan-Pakistan border, but continues to project its ideology and terrorism abroad. So now we face a world of ideologically driven homegrown terrorists — free radicals unattached to any formal organization — in addition to formal networks such as al-Qaeda that have managed to survive despite the tremendous pressure brought to bear against them since 9/11. And even more grim, they now feed off and strengthen one another.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001342_pf.html
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:21 pmSo much for the end of the Taliban…
U.S. to Give $2B to Equip Afghan Army
By TINI TRAN Associated Press Writer
July 04,2006 | KABUL, Afghanistan —
The United States said Monday it was giving $2 billion worth of military weapons and vehicles to modernize Afghanistan’s national army as the fledgling force contends with a resurgent Taliban resistance.
http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8IL047O0.html
July 5th, 2006 at 11:03 am#174
“Soldiers? You were claiming that we bombed Iraq to save the civilians from Saddam.”
You asked for it…
http://www.mytakeonthings.com/videos.html
“That is a bold faced lie to absolve yourself of the fact that there are thousands of innocents slaughtered in this unwarranted war.”
So you are saying that your brother is a murderer? Did your brother in any way direct firepower during the 1st Gulf War? Did he “pull the trigger” of his weapon? The U.S. military does not target civilians unless you can PROVE otherwise.
“You’re right – they are more powerful. See how quickly they replaced Zarqawi and how we’re having a tough time fighting them in Iraq now.”
The Taliban is not in Iraq and no THEY didn’t replace Zarqawi. LOL!
“I didn’t bad mouth them.”
You are a pacifist which by definition means the you think that those who RE-ENLISTED, i.e. those who are for the war in Iraq, that they are murders.
“Neither am I.”
Those who re-enlisted by choice are just as honorable and noble as those who chose to get out of the military when their required time was up?
“Don’t be asinine. Our own military says there are – and that’s why they are there still fighting.”
Our military has said nothing about finding new terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. If you have some proof about a specific base you will have to post the information to be believable.
“I’m disagreeing with you that a majority of them think they are better off now.”
I never said such a thing.
“No, I have no patience for 2500+ dead soldiers and over 50,000 dead Iraqis over nothing.”
For nothing? That YOUR opinion and nothing more.
“The point of contention was that those who see combat are more likely to be liberal than those who serve and do not.”
Your point has not been proven with your short and very limited list. Again there are thousands of troops that have seen more combat that Kerry (unearned Purple hearts and all) ever did, and they re-enlisted which means they certainly aren’t liberal.
“Again, stop trying to move the goal posts. You don’t win by cheating. Try to focus. It’s the next line what I said:
“..it’s pretty clear that there are more people against the war than for it.—
You are the one not only moving the goal posts but making them wider by saying more “people” instead of saying on target with “military people”. You have not proved the those who have seen combat in Iraq and are against the war outnumber those who believe in what they are doing there and have seen just as much or MORE combat considering that they re-enlisted.
“Everyone I’ve ever known personally who fought in war came back against it.”
And who do you know personally that has been in combat in Iraq? Your brother served in Iraq during or after the 2003 invasion?
“No. I was speaking of them, not your projects, as I have no idea what your projects entailed.”
I said that: “They have over 25,000 members so a 7,000 seat sancturary”, refering to a project I worked on and then you “No – it was like a complex. Gross and bloated.”
“Failure that I turned out to be a law abiding citizen who opposes unnecessary violence?”
Then you aren’t a pacifist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
“The facts are that there are proporationately fewer non-religious people in prison than religius people.”
Most of them became religious AFTER the got into prison.
“Yep. I don’t support killing other people for no reason.”
Again you are not a pacifist.
“I’ve never had an abortion.”
But you would out of convenience which would make you a murderer.
“That makes me more moral because i do it by choice and not by fear or manipulation.”
Those who are religious are not moral out of fear anymore that you are. You are so full of yourself. You are an utter snob and egomaniac to think that you are MORE moral or free thinking than I am. Pathetic.
“It’s about individual people giving. Not about organizations.”
Individuals giving is what makes the organization work. Hello?
“As I’m pretty sure there is no “Poor People†charity.”
Churches usually take the lead and ARE the “poor people” charities!
“Biased information ”
AGAIN how is it biased?
“They tell enough”
Oh, so statistics are good enough and tell the story as long as YOU are the one using them to attempt to make a point.
“And I’ve been there. You can’t fool me on this one.”
You haven’t lived there so you haven’t really BEEN there.
“Not an excuse.”
Most definately and excuse when you can serve in a non-combat role.
“Two people do not represent a vast majority.”
Hundreds of thousands of military voters that vote Republican do.
If you don’t support the mission you can’t support…letter from a U.S. Marine.
http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/article_7107.shtml
July 6th, 2006 at 2:20 pm[...] Bush doesn’t want more power because it will help him effectively fight the war on terror. He’s proven over and over that he doesn’t know how to do that. We know that he wants more power for crass political reasons, as Cheney in an accidental moment of candor let us know. “I firmly believe to this day even if the Congress had voted no we had no option but to proceed,” he said, adding that the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces, provides sufficient legal authority to launch a war.” [...]
July 7th, 2006 at 2:59 pmComment by Tracy — July 6, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
Bottomline Tracy – you are so afraid you are willing to condone any injustice – including killing innocent people – to assuage your fear. That makes you a coward and inhuman. Just own it. Stop trying to tie ribbons and bows around it to hide the fact that a pig wearing lipstick is still a pig (or coward in your case).
July 9th, 2006 at 9:22 am#180
“you are so afraid you are willing to condone any injustice”
If you had your way injustice would still be taking place in Iraq as it did for the last 30 years under Saddam. Your unwillingness to deal with that brutal situation when he was in power proves that you were willing to prop up this thug and go along with the status quo. Disarming Saddam was apparently good enough for you and that is pathetic.
“That makes you a coward and inhuman.”
The fact that you were unwilling to support taking Saddam out make you a coward and inhuman.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:28 amTracy,
Do you think the only way to remove a tyrant from power involved the loss of 2500+ soldiers, 50,000+ of the local people and $300 billion dollars?
We claim to have the world’s greatest military. We aren’t living up to it. We’re fighting like a little league team. You don’t think that makes us less safe?
Saddam might have been bad, but there are others who are far worse. Saddam was not even in the top ten. But, we just nod at those who are. That actually makes you the thing you claim you despise. But, hey, all you have is a revolving carosel of three or four talking points that you just keep repeating over and over and over, because your war is not standing on its own merits. Otherwise, the Taliban wouldn’t be an even bigger threat now. It would actually be defeated. You were wrong about the Taliban. I’m quite certain you’re wrong about most else you spout.
Besides, put your ass where your mouth is. Nothing’s stopping you from going to Iraq now. Chicken who is willing to use other people’s lives to save you from people who were never going to harm you (Saddam), while allowing Osama and the Taliban to not only remain at large – but to grow stronger. Your cowardice is making life in Iraq WORSE than it was under Saddam. Sickening what people like you will do for a false sense of security… And it is false. You are actually LESS safe now.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:50 am#182
“Do you think the only way to remove a tyrant from power involved the loss of 2500+ soldiers, 50,000+ of the local people and $300 billion dollars? ”
Saddam was removed from power WAY before your laundry list. Are you that naive to think that anything less than force was going to make Saddam leave Iraq? BTW I thought you are against removing tyrants from power under the BS notion that it’s “illegal”?
“Nothing’s stopping you from going to Iraq now.”
Considering you aren’t a pacifist as you claimed to be, nothing is stoping you from joining the military to serve your country. BTW what is stopping you from going to Iraq and protest the war….oh I forgot it soooo much easier to fire off e-mails and letters from the safety of your home or office.
“We claim to have the world’s greatest military. We aren’t living up to it. We’re fighting like a little league team.”
Since you have absolutely no concept of what is involved in fighting the insurgency in Iraq, your comment is yet another slap in the face of our soldiers serving. Must make you feel good to insult our soldiers. When you get some tatics and warfare knowledge…let me know.
“You were wrong about the Taliban.”
Not that they are no longer in control of Afghanistan. They are still there but they aren’t the governing entity as they were pre 9/11.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:13 amTracy,
Here’s a question for you.. If you believe the war on Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, then with the man in captivity for quite a while now, why are we still fighting in Iraq?
This wasn’t just about Saddam. It wasn’t just about what he could or might do. It never was. And it still isn’t. And you are still too afraid to look at it in a logical light and realize that until the situation with Osama- the guy who DID attack us – had been SOLVED, we had no business invading Iraq or anyone else.
You’re just repeating yourself now Tracy. I’ve heard your argument. It’s made of straw boogeymen and fear. Let me know if you have anything else…
July 13th, 2006 at 1:45 pm#184
“If you believe the war on Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, then with the man in captivity for quite a while now, why are we still fighting in Iraq?”
Those we are fighting in Iraq are Sunni Baathist loyalists and international terrorists, like al Zarkawi was. Saddam is only one man and those who supported him, that are still fighting, weren’t just going to lay down and surrender just because he was
captured.
“And you are still too afraid to look at it in a logical light and realize that until the situation with Osama- the guy who DID attack us – had been SOLVED, we had no business invading Iraq or anyone else.”
You, as someone with absolutely NO military or global strategical knowledge, have no business making the determination about what entities threaten or could potentially threaten the security of the U.S. and in what order they shall be dealt with. Once more, saying that we should only deal with one problem at a time exemplifies you inability to solve multiple problems simultaneously.
“Let me know if you have anything else…”
Let me know when you understand that the U.S. is not and will not wait till the threat is on the door step before action is taken.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:44 pmTracy,
You’re just trying to justify killing innocent people to make you feel safe.
That’s what all this nonsense you spout comes down to.
I’ll take it you have nothing new. Just same old regurgitated delusions to help you sleep at night. That was what I thought.
Coward.
July 14th, 2006 at 1:30 pm“You’re just trying to justify killing innocent people to make you feel safe.”
In ANY war civilians are going to be killed. You aren’t very bright when it comes to reality are you? Under NO circumstances, according to your logic, would the U.S. allowed to even be allowed to retaliate for ANY attack because of that FACT. Remember you said you are a pacifist. According to your logic the U.S. was not justified in killing German civilians during WW2. Are you a pacifist or not? You seem to be two faced when it suits you.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:41 pmPanic Attack Lenghts
This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?
March 17th, 2008 at 9:23 ammexico cruise deals
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pmNaked Girls Naked Young Girl Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pmHotels Doubletree Hotel Chicago Hotels
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 12:20 amVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 pmBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:33 amamerican board of anti aging medicine
had an answer they could provide for me.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:12 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 9:24 pmGinger Montano
Researchers probe for web sites on subjects such as this for different motives.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:12 amHardcore Sex Gay Hardcore Sex Hardcore Blowjob
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pmBelize Web Site Design
Want to take a look at my web site, you will find it very interesting.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pmJack
maybe i need to think twice about to see your point.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:10 pmcurrent checks colorado springs
very informative posting thanks
April 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 10:05 pmTom
I will dream of your poetic words tonight.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:13 pmtracking swift
April 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 10th, 2008 at 7:24 amSusan
April 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pmProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 8:45 amMisha
Man I came across your website while surfing the web and I must say I’m throughly inpressed. Your a pretty deep person with insights that go beyond anything I could have imagined. Tell me, do you have more you can offer?
April 13th, 2008 at 12:21 amvideo bore scope
Hiromi Shinya in the late 1960s, GI endoscopy developed into what is more recognizable as today’s colonoscopy. For large diameter borescopes,
April 13th, 2008 at 7:03 amCum Asian Cum Ass Cum
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 8:04 amHardcore Sex Sex Hardcore Hardcore Porn Videos
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 10:47 am