[aberdeenwriter]

____The Faces of 1,000 Soldiers
____t r u t h o u t |_Statement

____Thursday 09 September 2004

____Michael Allred and Richard Torres. Kenneth Souslin and Gregory Sanders. Brandon Rowe and Alyssa Peterson and Nathan Brown. The list goes ever onward. One thousand names, one thousand faces, one thousand folded American flags.

____The editors and staff of t r u t h o u t offer our deepest and most profound condolences to the families of the men and women who have fallen in Iraq. We offer to our readers the names and faces of these men and women, with deepest respect, so that all within the reach of our arm know who they were, how they smiled, and what they did in the service of our country.

____We believe George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and the members of this administration have much to answer for. Defenders of this invasion point to the casualty rate of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it to the casualty rates in other wars. "1,000 deaths is nothing" compared to Normandy, we hear.

____To be sure, this is true. But the invasion of Normandy, for one example, was undertaken to destroy a regime that had ravaged much of Europe, slaughtered millions of innocent people, and was determined to spread its darkness across as much of the globe as they could reach. The threat was as real as the bricks that formed the gas chambers at Dachau and the steel of the tanks that had roared into Poland. The men who died putting and end to that gave their lives in a cause that guaranteed the liberty of millions.

____Iraq was not a threat to the United States, or to any of their neighbors. The sanctions put into effect after the first Gulf War had turned that regime's conventional military into a large collection of paperweights. There are no weapons of mass destruction of any kind in Iraq. There were no connections whatsoever between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the attacks of September 11.

____The men and women whose faces fill the page below were not told this. They were, in fact, told the exact opposite. They raised their hands and took the oath, they donned their uniform and picked up their weapon, they boarded a plane and flew far from home, and they died. They were doing their duty, and they believed their President.

____George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and the members of this administration have much to answer for.

(aberdeenwriter notes: Peer into their eyes Mr. President and know they believed your lies. They trusted you to give them the best chance to succeed. You failed them and you have failed America. Shame on you!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091004W.shtml

[nate_02]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

(aberdeenwriter notes: Peer into their eyes Mr. President and know they believed your lies. They trusted you to give them the best chance to succeed. You failed them and you have failed America. Shame on you!)

You are such an idiot!

These soldiers gave their life to make America a safer place. They bravely did what they signed up to do. Just because there weren't any WMDs in Iraq doesn't mean they never existed.

President Bush did not lie, if anything he was misled by the CIA. A lie is something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. Get your definitions striaght.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by nate_02:
You are such an idiot!

These soldiers gave their life to make America a safer place. They bravely did what they signed up to do. Just because there weren't any WMDs in Iraq doesn't mean they never existed.

President Bush did not lie, if anything he was misled by the CIA. A lie is something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. Get your definitions striaght.

Careful with the name calling. All my posts on one thread were deleted (apparently by the mods) last night after I commented that one guy's name looked like, "Stupidhouseman!" lol

It's kinda tiresome to make the same arguments to a whole new set of "Bushies."

But I'll give it a try. Hmmm, you just gave me an idea. Maybe I'll create a website for just this purpose!

OK

Bush's advisors already wanted to go into Iraq, even before 9/11.

During Bush's first cabinet meeting all his neo-conservative advisors were talking about was IRAQ-IRAQ-IRAQ.

Richard Clarke, Clinton's and Bush's counterterrorism guy had done a good job of preventing Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda attacks during the Clinton Administration because Clinton took the risk seriously.

However, the neo-cons didn't even know who OBL was!

Clarke tried making his case to the President about the threat OBL posed, but the Bush Team denied Clarke the opportunity.

Once 9/11 happened there were established contingency plans which spelled out EXACTLY what the POTUS should do. Bush ignored those plans to do his own thing.

We could have caught OBL at Tora Bora but Bush refused to push the attack.

Bush has committed to Iraq but OBL runs free.

Bush hasn't made the case for a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Some more things to think about before supporting a Lying, Incompetent, Deceptive, Secretive (LIDS) President.


* Millions of jobs lost in the last four years;

* Unbearably expensive health care;

* A total loss of confidence within the international community in our moral leadership;

* The underfunded farce that is the Department of Homeland Security;

* The underfunded farce that is the No Child Left Behind bill;

* The fact that military assault weapons will soon be making a perfectly legal return to a neighborhood near you;

* The deeply illegal outing of a deep-cover CIA agent by Bush administration officials, who did it because they wanted to silence a critic;

* The rape and torture of men, women and children in the Abu Ghraib prison, horrors that were sanctioned in writing by Bush's own lawyer and the Secretary of Defense;

* The allegation by Senator Bob Graham of Florida that Bush torpedoed any aspect of the 9/11 investigation that came within spitting distance of his friends in the Saudi royal family;

* The allegations by several generals that Bush's people started stripping necessary troops and resources from Afghanistan to bolster their ill-conceived charge into Iraq;

* The myriad accusations by a dozen insiders that Bush and his people ignored the terror threat until the Towers fell, and then used the attacks to scare the American people into an unnecessary war in Iraq and a mammoth payday for their friends in the weapons and oil business;

* The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq;

* The fact that no connections between Hussein, bin Laden and 9/11 have been established beyond the bloviating hyperbole of a few senior Bush officials who haven't yet gotten the memo;

* Does anyone even remember Enron?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by nate_02:
You are such an idiot!

Personal attacks on MacNN members!

The Bushies are really showing their stripes.


That site really says it all. Wow!

A picture says a thousand words but here are a thousand pictures.

They say a psychopath has no feelings and therefore no remorse. How does Bush sleep at night.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Personal attacks on MacNN members!

The Bushies are really showing their stripes.


That site really says it all. Wow!

A picture says a thousand words but here are a thousand pictures.

They say a psychopath has no feelings and therefore no remorse. How does Bush sleep at night.

Personal attacks on MacNN members is not okay. I understand that. But personal attacks against the President is? The left loves the overemphasize the number of deaths while the right minimizes it. The truth: All of the men and women volunteered for the military in the U.S. (don't know about other coalition countries).

To me, it seems ironic that when there was the lead up to war, many protesters said that they support the troops, just not their mission. During Vietnam, protesters disrespected both the soldiers and policy. However, back then, many were drafted and therefore didn't have much a choice. Today, the military is 100% volunteer. Doesn't make sense that the left would protest the drafted soldiers in Vietnam and now support the volunteers today.

[nate_02]

aberdeenwriter, I apologize for calling you an idiot.

[chabig]

* Millions of jobs lost in the last four years;

Thanks to the recession Clinton gave us. Bush's tax cuts are pulling us out.

* Unbearably expensive health care;

How is the President responsible for this. I'd lay the blame at the trial lawyers. But remember that those costs buy us the best health care in the world.

* A total loss of confidence within the international community in our moral leadership;

I don't care what the world thinks of us. Our leaders have a responsibility to keep us safe and we don't need the permission of other countries before taking affirmative action to defend our country from the bad guys.

* The underfunded farce that is the Department of Homeland Security;

I'm not very knowledgeable on these types of costs. But if you really believe it's underfunded you are free to send them a check.

* The underfunded farce that is the No Child Left Behind bill;

Can you be more specific?
* The fact that military assault weapons will soon be making a perfectly legal return to a neighborhood near you;[/quote]
I'm not bothered by law-abiding gun owners. And the criminals aren't dissuaded by gun control laws. So it's not a big deal to me. Are you firearm phobic?

* The deeply illegal outing of a deep-cover CIA agent by Bush administration officials, who did it because they wanted to silence a critic;

* The rape and torture of men, women and children in the Abu Ghraib prison, horrors that were sanctioned in writing by Bush's own lawyer and the Secretary of Defense

I don't think anyone was raped, and I never saw pictures of women and children. You're being overly dramatic with your unproven accusations.

* The allegation by Senator Bob Graham of Florida that Bush torpedoed any aspect of the 9/11 investigation that came within spitting distance of his friends in the Saudi royal family

So a simple allegation by a political opponent is sufficient for conviction, in your mind?

* The allegations by several generals that Bush's people started stripping necessary troops and resources from Afghanistan to bolster their ill-conceived charge into Iraq

More allegations? Didn't Kerry vote against providing necessary resources that the administration asked for?

* The myriad accusations by a dozen insiders that Bush and his people ignored the terror threat until the Towers fell, and then used the attacks to scare the American people into an unnecessary war in Iraq and a mammoth payday for their friends in the weapons and oil business

The threat was clear in the Clinton administration, which had 8 years to deal with the problem, and failed to do so. What would you have had the President do in the eight months he had since taking office.

* The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq

Totally irrelevant. All it proves is that they haven't been found. Everyone, including Clinton, Daschle, and other dems said they were there.

* The fact that no connections between Hussein, bin Laden and 9/11 have been established beyond the bloviating hyperbole of a few senior Bush officials who haven't yet gotten the memo

Wrong. The 911 commission report described connections between Iraq and Al Queda. According to a CNN Report "In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda,..."

* Does anyone even remember Enron?

Yeah, I do. It all happened during the Clinton administration, at the same time the Wall Street firms were giving favors to their big customers at the expense of the little guy.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Personal attacks on MacNN members is not okay. I understand that. But personal attacks against the President is?

Sure unless he's posting here.

He's president not god of gods...

Same with Kerry.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by chabig:
Thanks to the recession Clinton gave us. Bush's tax cuts are pulling us out.

I'll just comment on this one statement.

Blaming the last administration when the economy was flourishing doesn't hold water.

I blame 9/11 on the economic shift, not Clinton or Bush.

As for tax cuts. Where's all the money going to come from to pay for EVERYTHING.

Trillions in debt to foreign countries. The U.S. has become a debtor nation. It owes more than it takes in. That is not good.

Bush is the only president in U.S. history to cut taxes when it was at war. Who is going to pay for the Iraqi war?.. Not Iceland, not China, not Italy...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
____The Faces of 1,000 Soldiers
____t r u t h o u t |_Statement

If your intent is to use the names of combat dead to make a political point, I think that is incredibly tacky and disrespectful. You don't know what they believed, or would have wanted. By all means honor their sacrifice, but don't hijack them. You can make your political points just as strongly without doing that.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Personal attacks on MacNN members!

The Bushies are really showing their stripes.


That site really says it all. Wow!

A picture says a thousand words but here are a thousand pictures.

They say a psychopath has no feelings and therefore no remorse. How does Bush sleep at night.

Oh don't even start that ****. Today, you called all of the conservatives on this board nazis. And today Bush is a psychopath. Just like Ed Gein, right? Y'know, from that Slayer song?

Back to post:
There were no women or children in the "abuse scandal." There are worse things that go on in a prison.
A memo in August containing already known information does not qualify as knowing it was going to happen.

And all you anti-cuts people need to stop bitching about them. The only thing you guys ever say is they are for the wealthy, and that makes sense since they pay the most.

And since you're a lib, you think Kerry wouldn't have done the war?

[Ratm]

Didn't read the entire thread but I hope you're not forgetting the thousands of innocent Iraq civilians.

[CreepingDeth]

Or American citizens.
Or the Iraqis killed by the man we got rid of.

[spauldingg]

Who cares where they came from. They are all dead.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If your intent is to use the names of combat dead to make a political point, I think that is incredibly tacky and disrespectful.

Ditto.

[nate_02]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:


Some more things to think about before supporting a Lying, Incompetent, Deceptive, Secretive (LIDS) President.


* Millions of jobs lost in the last four years;

* Unbearably expensive health care;

* A total loss of confidence within the international community in our moral leadership;

-If you remember September 11th, 2001, It made our already rough economy inherited from President Clinton plunge. It's not because Bush is a Liar. I know several people who are in HR departments, or company owners, and can't find enough people to work for them.

-That's why we need to limit how much money people get in those silly lawsuits that make our healthcare skyrocket

-Who is the international community to decide what is right for the US?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by nate_02:
aberdeenwriter, I apologize for calling you an idiot.

Oh it isn't a big deal, but I don't want your posts to just disappear because of a silly thing like name calling.

No prob!

And, by the way, I don't think you are idiotic for supporting the President.

I was a Bushie until this spring!

Then I started looking at how he effectively silenced Howard Stern on 6 Clear Channel Communications radio stations after Stern withdrew his support for GWB. Pres. Bush's buddy, Lowry Mays, owns Clear Channel.

Then, the FCC either fined Stern or threatened to fine him for saying almost the same thing that OPRAH said, but she didn't get any threats or fines by the FCC. Why, you might ask?

Could it be because Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell is the FCC Chairman?

Furthermore, the way the FCC did this is very sneaky. (Details upon request.)

When the government can exercise it's own version of censorship on our popular entertainment it starts treading on our freedom of speech.

So, I began to examine the possibility that GWB uses the same kind of M.O. (working through his friends, business associates and others so he can't be directly blamed for anything) for his sneaky, behind the scenes dealings in other ways and in other areas.

Then I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and was devastated by the things I saw!

Since then I've come to believe Michael Moore may have gone a bit too far in some cases. But even after checking on the film's accuracy, and finding some of his assertions go over the top or over the line, I'm still left with the unavoidable impression that George Bush has a certain style of leadership and if you look for it, you can see it in everything he does.

I coined the term, LIDS in order to describe the 4 main categories of the President's (or his administration's offenses or shortcomings).

Lies - We have been lied to about certain things that we can't (in some cases) yet prove. You sometimes get a gut feeling when someone is lying to you. But if they're good at it they study you and know what they can get away with. They also know when they'll never be called on a lie. It's kind of like going to a used car lot or playing poker.

Incompetence - I think the President's inarticulate way of speaking is just his way of speaking. I don't use that as a way of judging his intelligence. He's obviously not stupid, but he's shallow. He gets an idea and can't make a quick mental leap to look at a different idea. He shoots from the hip and governs by how he feels. I've read he doesn't hold people accountable.
The people around him may be his good buddies but in some cases they may not be the most qualified people for the jobs.

Deception - George W. Bush is a sneaky guy. He has sneaky people around him. Together, they do sneaky things to benefit themselves and hide it from the American public.

Secrecy - There are some things that an administration has to keep secret, of course. But this is OUR country and there are things we have a right to know, but that is not his way. Deception, and secrecy are two effective ways of controlling or manipulating people and to cover for lies and mistakes or incompetence.

So we have the four categories.

In my next installment we'll look at some specifics of the Bush Administration and see what you think.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by chabig:
Wrong. The 911 commission report described connections between Iraq and Al Queda. According to a CNN Report "In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda,..."

SIGH!

Selective censorship must be taught in Bush fanboy classes because it seems so many Bushies practice it.

Or is it that you support Bushie because he is soo much like you all???

Don't you understand the reason people don't believe the president anymore is precisely because he's shown he CAN'T BE TRUSTED!!!!

And when you practice this same kind of slanted and 'slightly inaccurate' reportage YOU ARE ACTING JUST LIKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND SO I CAN ONLY ASSUME YOU ARE ALSO 'INFECTED' WITH "LIDS!"

So, now we know you can't be trusted!

Kinda simple isn't it?

Look at your own actions and then consider why people are saying, "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"

Anyway, here, from YOUR SUPPLIED LINK are the pertinent paragraphs...


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Disputing anew an assertion by the Bush administration, the independent commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, released a statement Tuesday indicating that it stands by its conclusion that al Qaeda and Iraq had ONLY LIMITED* connections.

The commission has said it has seen no evidence to suggest that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government was involved in the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda, those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship."


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911
_
_* EMPHASIS MINE

[besson3c]

Originally posted by chabig:
Thanks to the recession Clinton gave us. Bush's tax cuts are pulling us out.

Clinton did not leave us with this huge ass deficit. Bush's tax cuts and policies such as dividend taxation favor the upper middle class. In a day where an increased budget is used to invest in new technology which often displaces workers, Bush's whole trickle-down economic approach certainly can be attributed to the fact that he'll be the first president since Hoover to actually lose jobs during his administration. I would suggest that trickle-down is an obsolete concept.

I know jobs and tax cuts are a different thing, but without being an economist I would say that we aren't pulling out of anything with no jobs.

I don't care what the world thinks of us. Our leaders have a responsibility to keep us safe and we don't need the permission of other countries before taking affirmative action to defend our country from the bad guys.

That's a horrible attitude to embrace.

You look at the rest of the world as being displeased with the US for taking affirmative action. Let's look at it from the perspective of people outside the US:

1) UN wants more time for inspections, does not feel that there is evidence of a tie between Saddam and Osama, obviously feels that the evidence of WMD is not quite there.

2) US skirts around UN, forms a "coalition of the willing" of a bunch of countries with little military to contribute (other than the UK). Basically puts a US/UK face on the occupation. Gets it wrong. Incorrect pretense for war.

3) Now would like the UN to become involved and, presumably, for the world to become involved.

There is something to be learned from this. Saying "**** the rest of the world" does not do us one bit of good. The rest of the world is a big place. We do need alliances. Bush himself has said that terrorism is a global problem and threat.

I don't think anyone was raped, and I never saw pictures of women and children. You're being overly dramatic with your unproven accusations.

Consult some non-US media sources. I've read some of the same stories, I'm sorry I don't have a link handy. I can tell you that it didn't come from mainstream US media, although the leak of information came from a credible authority. We have been told very little about what *actually* happened other than "some horrible things" and other such vagueness. Since we aren't being told, is it wrong to assume the worst? We may not want to hear it, but...

More allegations? Didn't Kerry vote against providing necessary resources that the administration asked for?

Can you provide a context, or is this not really a point you are trying to make but merely throwing out there for possible consideration?

Wrong. The 911 commission report described connections between Iraq and Al Queda. According to a CNN Report "In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda,..."

The headline of this story?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Disputing anew an assertion by the Bush administration, the independent commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, released a statement Tuesday indicating that it stands by its conclusion that al Qaeda and Iraq had only limited connections

The rest of your quote you have provided out of context:

In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda, those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship."

Without knowing what "limited connections" are, and what sorts of contacts that exclude "collaborative relationships" are, I'd say that your evidence is pretty weak.

[Zimphire]

Congratulations to the original poster of this thread.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by nate_02:


-Who is the international community to decide what is right for the US?

When Germany decided to invade Poland what right did the international community have to decide what was right for Germany?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by shmerek:
When Germany decided to invade Poland what right did the international community have to decide what was right for Germany?

Simple, we are not nazi scum ok ?

We don't round up people, and ship them off in cattle cars inorder to gas them.

We don't promote racial hatred, as official policy.

If somebody needs to point out the differences between Hitler run germany and the USA, then I doubt it's worth it to take the time in order to explain to that person.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Simple, we are not nazi scum ok ?

We don't round up people, and ship them off in cattle cars inorder to gas them.

We don't promote racial hatred, as official policy.

If somebody needs to point out the differences between Hitler run germany and the USA, then I doubt it's worth it to take the time in order to explain to that person.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if GWB actually DOES plan to take over the WORLD?

See my post:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread....584#post2181584

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Congratulations to the original poster of this thread.

Let's see...

Cute and fuzzy?

Short and plastic?

Happy and golden colored?

Naked and inspires smiles?

I'll take it!

LOLOL

See my post:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread....584#post2181584

[shmerek]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if GWB actually DOES plan to take over the WORLD?

See my post:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread....584#post2181584

I wish you guys wouldn't quote Pachead otherwise I would never have to read his tripe.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
It's kinda tiresome to make the same arguments to a whole new set of "Bushies."

Give me a break... like it or not, he's our president... time to give it a rest already

[PacHead]

Originally posted by shmerek:
I wish you guys wouldn't quote Pachead otherwise I would never have to read his tripe.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by nate_02:
These soldiers gave their life to make America a safer place. They bravely did what they signed up to do. Just because there weren't any WMDs in Iraq doesn't mean they never existed.

How was Iraq a **direct** threat to the United States on the same level that Al Qaeda was/still is? How?

Seriously, HOW?

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
Give me a break... like it or not, he's our president... time to give it a rest already

I wonder if a Presidential Recall is possible. They did it in to the former Govenor of CA...

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Beewee:
I wonder if a Presidential Recall is possible. They did it in to the former Govenor of CA...

Nope. The only thing I think there is impeachment for high crimes & misdemeanors. Don't hold your breath.

BTW, nice Carlin sig. Making fun of yellow ribbons and flags because they're symbol (simple) minded. Tee hee.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by shmerek:
I wish you guys wouldn't quote Pachead otherwise I would never have to read his tripe.

Wilco

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Simple, we are not nazi scum ok ?

We don't round up people, and ship them off in cattle cars inorder to gas them.

We don't promote racial hatred, as official policy.

If somebody needs to point out the differences between Hitler run germany and the USA, then I doubt it's worth it to take the time in order to explain to that person.

[Troll]

Originally posted by chabig:
Thanks to the recession Clinton gave us. Bush's tax cuts are pulling us out.

[siggghhhh]A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Simple as that. Clinton never gave anyone a recession. There hasn't been a recession when a democrat has been President since, I don't know when. There have been three recession since 1980, 1982 - Reagan, 1991 - Bush Snr, 2002 - Bush Jnr.

In all 16 quarters of Clinton's presidency, there was only one quarter of negative growth, his second last quarter in office. There was never a recession. In his last quarter in office, growth was positive.

[Troll]

Originally posted by nate_02:
These soldiers gave their life to make America a safer place.

That's where you're wrong. If you listen to the Bush Administration and the thinktanks that its members belong to, they are telling you that those soldiers died for the New American Century. It wasn't just about WMD, it wasn't just about dubious links to terrorism. It was about REGIME CHANGE. It was about removing a government that the US didn't like and installing a new, democratic one in the belief that democracy, peace and pro-Americanism would spontaneously break out in Iraq and inspire other Middle Eastern people to want some of the "good life" and invite the US Army to change their regimes. The Bush Administration's foreign policy is about removing the impediments to the exercise of US Military power in an effort to reshape the world so that it better serves US interests. It's about using US military might to secure an American Empire that will last another 100 years.

THAT is what those soldiers gave their lives for. THAT is why is doesn't matter that there are no WMD in Iraq. And THAT is what you are signing yourselves up to for another 4 years if you vote for Bush and his cabal.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
[siggghhhh]A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Simple as that. Clinton never gave anyone a recession. There hasn't been a recession when a democrat has been President since, I don't know when. There have been three recession since 1980, 1982 - Reagan, 1991 - Bush Snr, 2002 - Bush Jnr.

In all 16 quarters of Clinton's presidency, there was only one quarter of negative growth, his second last quarter in office. There was never a recession. In his last quarter in office, growth was positive.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=2#post2187258

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
That's where you're wrong. If you listen to the Bush Administration and the thinktanks that its members belong to, they are telling you that those soldiers died for the New American Century. It wasn't just about WMD, it wasn't just about dubious links to terrorism. It was about REGIME CHANGE. It was about removing a government that the US didn't like and installing a new, democratic one in the belief that democracy, peace and pro-Americanism would spontaneously break out in Iraq and inspire other Middle Eastern people to want some of the "good life" and invite the US Army to change their regimes. The Bush Administration's foreign policy is about removing the impediments to the exercise of US Military power in an effort to reshape the world so that it better serves US interests. It's about using US military might to secure an American Empire that will last another 100 years.

THAT is what those soldiers gave their lives for. THAT is why is doesn't matter that there are no WMD in Iraq. And THAT is what you are signing yourselves up to for another 4 years if you vote for Bush and his cabal.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
[B]***Edit***

Peanutbutter will make you fat.

[Zimphire]

FUD spreading will make you stupid.