[Solomon Grundy]

Originally posted by Jansar:
What do you know? Are you part of the Bush Administration? I bet he has loads of people after Osama. Troops have never left Afghanistan. Bush went to Iraq, because the worst terrorism stemmed from there, and he has eliminated most of it. He has 3/4 of all Al Qaeda (remember, Osama is an Al Qaeda leader) leaders in captivity or in body bags.

There's your hero. Kerry is a phony. And a coward.

Please I would love some examples of the "worst terrorism" that stemmed from Iraq before the invasion.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Atomic Rooster
Rock band from the seventies that was a favorite of a now deceased best friend.
http://www.atomicrooster.co.uk/

Hey, what a cool way of honoring your friend's memory.

After he is caught then we bomb the sh!t out of the middle east.

No, seriously. It's easy to criticize. What is your best idea for what to do once OBL is behind bars or dust?

[icruise]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Do I take it that Kerry's and your position is: after OBL is caught or killed, we could/would/should/can rest easy?

Congratulations. That's exactly (the opposite of) my point. As I said, just getting the leaders will not solve the problem. But if you had the choice between going after the person responsible for the attacks or someone who had very little if anything to do with them, which do you think is the wiser choice?

[BRussell]

I haven't seen any of the other post-debate commentary mention this, but one of my favorite moments of the debate was when Bush questioned Kerry about where he was going to get the money for his policies. Now THAT took some chutzpah.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by itai:

Originally posted by Jansar:
Troops have never left Afghanistan.

What do you mean by that? There are still troops there, of course. But many American troops have left Afghanistan. Bush even mentioned that in the debate.

And specifically, highly trained troops specialized in hunting HVTs -- High Value Targets, i.e. Osama and the Al Qaeda leadership -- were transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq. The war in Iraq quite clearly diverted resources from the WOT.

[itai195]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I haven't seen any of the other post-debate commentary mention this, but one of my favorite moments of the debate was when Bush questioned Kerry about where he was going to get the money for his policies. Now THAT took some chutzpah.

It's like a huge tax... ... *crickets chirp* ... ... gap!

[a holck]

He said he'd do a better job than Bush at protecting our country, and then criticised Bush for funding the R&D of nuclear "Bunker Buster" bombs, which are clearly aimed at fighting terrorism.

I can't believe how you can defend the policy of ongoing research on new offensive nuclear weapons, and at the same time defend the hard policy of preemptive attacks against foreign nations researching WMD's.

These "bombs" are not for defense but for attacking. Talk about mixed messages....

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
Please I would love some examples of the "worst terrorism" that stemmed from Iraq before the invasion.

If you searched the various threads where this exact issue has been discussed you'll see several reasonable examples of the danger posed by Saddam.

What may be most telling was his $25,000 payments to the suicide terrorist's families.

That showed intent and might be considered a strong statement as well as an open invitation of his willingness to support terrorism.

In the WWII bombing raids on Germany it was only logical to hit not only the important and immediate military targets, but also to destroy the enemy's ability to support the fighting.

Factories which produced bullets and bombs, periscopes and parachutes were all fair game.

In Saddam's Iraq, there was a clear ability and intent to support terrorism directly aimed at harming the US or our interests as well as the dirty deeds he committed on his own peoples and neighbors as a form of 'hobby.'

Any one of the reasons for getting Saddam out of the way would have been sufficient cause in my book.

Humanitarian abuses. Our desire to have another ME democracy. Freeing his peoples. Removing his support or potential support of terrorism. His intent to raise his threat to his own people and the ME by developing WMD's. Though none may have been found, he would have kept at it. Our desire to secure a vital national resource (oil). (Well, that one alone wouldn't be enough for me, but it IS important.) The importance of having him out of the way while we had large numbers of troops on the ground in nearby Afghanistan was in avoiding any possibility of his instigating a second front and thus escalating the military actions in the region. There are possibly others I'm missing. But the WOT was made more effective with Saddam's removal.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by a holck:
I can't believe how you can defend the policy of ongoing research on new offensive nuclear weapons, and at the same time defend the hard policy of preemptive attacks against foreign nations researching WMD's.

These "bombs" are not for defense but for attacking. Talk about mixed messages....

How much of a deterrent is a 'toothless' guard dog?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I haven't seen any of the other post-debate commentary mention this, but one of my favorite moments of the debate was when Bush questioned Kerry about where he was going to get the money for his policies. Now THAT took some chutzpah.

You know, I, too noted that statement and attributed it to the President's desire to reinforce what most people already understand about Democrats...they want bigger government and more taxes.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Congratulations. That's exactly (the opposite of) my point. As I said, just getting the leaders will not solve the problem. But if you had the choice between going after the person responsible for the attacks or someone who had very little if anything to do with them, which do you think is the wiser choice?

Ever read a book or watch a film where something just doesn't seem to make sense until the last chapter or scene?

[OldManMac]

Um,...just in case you haven't noticed, my young friend. There's a Republican administration in office now, and the size of the government has exploded under it, and somebody has to pay for that increase.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
*snip*

You realize that Kim Jong-il has killed more of his own people than Saddam has killed of others, teach in their schools to hate the United States and their allies, and really do have weapons of mass destruction?

I'm sure I mentioned this before.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Absolutely not. It's a question of priorities, and the prudent use of resources. It appears to have been a dubious judgment to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan, and before resources were spent enhancing security at home, nevermind the poor intelligence we had on Iraq. We are now, in the eyes of many, overextended. I realize that hindsight is 20-20, but I'm afraid the miscalculations have been well beyond the margin of allowable error.

This really has little to do with whether or not Bush's grand vision is a good one. It has to do with the ability to execute.

It's clear to me that the forces in Afghanistan have been free to search for al Qaeda and OBL without serious attacks from outside Afghanistan is because of the President's decision to eliminate the ONLY major player in the region with the ability and/or intent to complicate that search and/or escalate the hostilities into a more widespread, more intense engagement.

I'll bet the forces on the ground in Afghanistan are GRATEFUL the President was 'watching their backs.'

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
You realize that Kim Jong-il has killed more of his own people than Saddam has killed of others, teach in their schools to hate the United States and their allies, and really do have weapons of mass destruction?

I'm sure I mentioned this before.

And because he IS more of a danger the President is (prudently) dealing with KJI in a more deliberate way...engaging in MULTI-LATERAL negotiations. As opposed to Sen. Kerry who advocates removing China from the talks.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
It's clear to me that the forces in Afghanistan have been free to search for al Qaeda and OBL without serious attacks from outside Afghanistan is because of the President's decision to eliminate the ONLY major player in the region with the ability and/or intent to complicate that search and/or escalate the hostilities into a more widespread, more intense engagement.

I'll bet the forces on the ground in Afghanistan are GRATEFUL the President was 'watching their backs.'

Just fer kicks, check out this map from the State Department Web site from shortly after 9/11. It shows where al Qaeda has been active. Notice how many countries in the Middle East and neighboring regions that are red with al Qaeda activity - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. Notice one country of only a few in the region that is not red with al Qaeda activity. You guessed it, Iraq.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
It's clear to me that the forces in Afghanistan have been free to search for al Qaeda and OBL without serious attacks from outside Afghanistan is because of the President's decision to eliminate the ONLY major player in the region with the ability and/or intent to complicate that search and/or escalate the hostilities into a more widespread, more intense engagement.

I'll bet the forces on the ground in Afghanistan are GRATEFUL the President was 'watching their backs.'

[aberdeenwriter]

oops. nm

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:


OOOOOOH, now I get it!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:

In my day I've been involved in a fight or two. When you are engaging your opponent but he has buddies crowded around, you always have to assume they'll jump in to help their friend.

Or, another analogy I've used on these pages is that of the police going in to a drug house to serve a warrant. The bad guy who lives in the house has a guard dog.

Before the cops go in, they (wisely) take care of the guard dog FIRST.

In the ME there was no bigger badder mad dog than Saddam. He was neutralized and the actions in Afghanistan go on without greater danger from without.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
OOOOOOH, now I get it!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Just fer kicks, check out this map from the State Department Web site from shortly after 9/11. It shows where al Qaeda has been active. Notice how many countries in the Middle East and neighboring regions that are red with al Qaeda activity - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. Notice one country of only a few in the region that is not red with al Qaeda activity. You guessed it, Iraq.

Name those countries (with or without al Qaeda ACTIVITY) which posed all the dangers to the WOT that Saddam did as far as our hunt for OBL; which displayed the same dogged determination to not play nicely, and where al Qaeda's regime could be toppled.

The only two countries were Afghanistan, where alQaeda/Taliban ruled, and Iraq.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Just fer kicks,

So I guess all the terrorists currently residing in Iraq just spawned from the sand?

I guess all that money that Saddam paid off to palestinian terrorists can go unanswered too?


Oh yeah I forgot Iraq was a sovereign nation before we invaded....no threat at all. Hell I think Saddam should be offered the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ok sarcasm off.

Iraq sits square in the middle. Makes for a good location for installing a Democracy.

I won't debate anything else. Because I'm right.

[BlackGriffen]

Bush made at least one substantial mistake that he should be hammered for, repeatedly, in ads from Kerry and 527s: when he asked Kerry where he'd get the money for port security and other genuine homeland security measures. The tagline: Bush puts tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of homeland security (or "our lives").

BG

[nredman]

Kerry owned Bush - imho

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
And because he IS more of a danger the President is (prudently) dealing with KJI in a more deliberate way...engaging in MULTI-LATERAL negotiations. As opposed to Sen. Kerry who advocates removing China from the talks.

You've repeated this several times in this thread, please stop - it's simply not true. From the debate:

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea.

Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true.

We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too.

It's obvious that Kerry wants to start bilateral talks with the North Koreans AND keep the multilateral talks with the Chinese and other Asian nations. Bush believes that the Chinese would leave if we did so, but this is merely Bush's opinion, it is not a fact. Your assertion that "Kerry advocates removing China from the talks" is wildly off the mark. Kerry doesn't believe this would happen, as proven by the second quote. Nobody can predict what would happen, AFAIK the Chinese have never said that they would leave the table if the US started talking to NK directly.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
You've repeated this several times in this thread, please stop - it's simply not true. From the debate:

It's obvious that Kerry wants to start bilateral talks with the North Koreans AND keep the multilateral talks with the Chinese and other Asian nations. Bush believes that the Chinese would leave if we did so, but this is merely Bush's opinion, it is not a fact. Your assertion that "Kerry advocates removing China from the talks" is wildly off the mark. Kerry doesn't believe this would happen, as proven by the second quote. Nobody can predict what would happen, AFAIK the Chinese have never said that they would leave the table if the US started talking to NK directly.

With all due respect, Kerry SAYS he can talk the European nations into assuming a larger role in Iraq. Maybe he can. Maybe not. What would he offer them? Kerry SAYS he could get the UN involved to a greater degree. What are the pros and cons of that?
Kerry SAYS he can do a better job. What's his plan? How does it differ from what the President has already done?

Kerry SAYS a lot of things.

Yet, even with more than a year of hard and largely ineffective campaigning, only til last night could the American voter finally say he seemed to have (arguably) what it takes to be seriously considered.

And even after a week of preparation he STILL couldn't manage to keep from flip-flopping -- several times he contradicted his own statements made during the 90 minute debate! (Not to mention the flip flops from before the debate.)

He hasn't been able to effectively get his message out to those who would support him.

His campaign has been rendered impotent by his lack of consistency.

He says he can do a better job but can't specify how.

He says he can negotiate with some tough customers who have VERY different agendas than ours.

His leadership flaws are being exposed now to the world and represent opportunities for foreign leaders to exploit should he elected.

When I sold cars for a living I would have either, eaten him alive or thrown him out of the dealership because of his frustrating inconsistencies. And while I could either WIN or (at least) NOT LOSE, he would lose in both cases.

Sorry. I don't trust his ability.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
With all due respect, Kerry SAYS he can talk the European nations into assuming a larger role in Iraq. Maybe he can. Maybe not. What would he offer them? Kerry SAYS he could get the UN involved to a greater degree. What are the pros and cons of that?
Kerry SAYS he can do a better job. What's his plan? How does it differ from what the President has already done?

Kerry SAYS a lot of things.

Yet, even with more than a year of hard and largely ineffective campaigning, only til last night could the American voter finally say he seemed to have (arguably) what it takes to be seriously considered.

And even after a week of preparation he STILL couldn't manage to keep from flip-flopping -- several times he contradicted his own statements made during the 90 minute debate! (Not to mention the flip flops from before the debate.)

He hasn't been able to effectively get his message out to those who would support him.

His campaign has been rendered impotent by his lack of consistency.

He says he can do a better job but can't specify how.

He says he can negotiate with some tough customers who have VERY different agendas than ours.

His leadership flaws are being exposed now to the world and represent opportunities for foreign leaders to exploit should he elected.

When I sold cars for a living I would have either, eaten him alive or thrown him out of the dealership because of his frustrating inconsistencies. And while I could either WIN or (at least) NOT LOSE, he would lose in both cases.

Sorry. I don't trust his ability.

I'm not asking you to trust his ability. That's not what I posted about. It's all well and good to have your own opinion about Kerry. I have no issue with that - but it doesn't change the fact that the position you kept attributing to him wasn't true. Kerry does not advocate removing China from the talks with North Korea. Period. You were wrong. You don't have to change your overall opinion about Kerry to admit that.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
I'm not asking you to trust his ability. That's not what I posted about. It's all well and good to have your own opinion about Kerry. I have no issue with that - but it doesn't change the fact that the position you kept attributing to him wasn't true. Kerry does not advocate removing China from the talks with North Korea. Period. You were wrong. You don't have to change your overall opinion about Kerry to admit that.

If what you say is accurate, I stand corrected. If the good Senator changes his mind about that issue. I promise not to rub anyone's nose in it.

[Solomon Grundy]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
If you searched the various threads where this exact issue has been discussed you'll see several reasonable examples of the danger posed by Saddam.

Sorry but I am not going to do a search to prove somebody else's claim.

What may be most telling was his $25,000 payments to the suicide terrorist's families.
That showed intent and might be considered a strong statement as well as an open invitation of his willingness to support terrorism.

I would hardly call giving money to the families of suicide bombing the "worst kind of terrorism" . Is that up there with 9/11? Besides the US government has supported groups in the past that might be deemed as terrorists by some

In the WWII bombing raids on Germany it was only logical to hit not only the important and immediate military targets, but also to destroy the enemy's ability to support the fighting.

Factories which produced bullets and bombs, periscopes and parachutes were all fair game.

I hate to break it to you but it is not 1942 and even if it was Germany started a war with an unprovoked attack. Iraq did not.

In Saddam's Iraq, there was a clear ability and intent to support terrorism directly aimed at harming the US or our interests as well as the dirty deeds he committed on his own peoples and neighbors as a form of 'hobby.'

Any one of the reasons for getting Saddam out of the way would have been sufficient cause in my book.

I am sorry but this is not clear at all. There is no evidence that Saddam supported OBL and his cohorts.

Humanitarian abuses.

Humanitarian abuses within one's on own country are not terrorism they are humanitarian abuses.
[quote]
Our desire to have another ME democracy. Freeing his peoples. Removing his support or potential support of terrorism. His intent to raise his threat to his own people and the ME by developing WMD's. Though none may have been found, he would have kept at it. Our desire to secure a vital national resource (oil). (Well, that one alone wouldn't be enough for me, but it IS important.)[quote]I hate to break it to you but what you desire has no bearing on what should be happening in the ME. It is kind of amusing how many of the right wingers on this board claim that nobody has the right to meddle with their country but you feel you have some sort of right to do it in others. Nice hypocrisy. Also I am sorry but your "desire" for oil in some other country doesn't give you the right to invade.

The importance of having him out of the way while we had large numbers of troops on the ground in nearby Afghanistan was in avoiding any possibility of his instigating a second front and thus escalating the military actions in the region. There are possibly others I'm missing. But the WOT was made more effective with Saddam's removal.

Avoiding a second front by creating a new one in Iraq? ... I get it
Face the facts it was a diversion from OBL and if you believe otherwise you are wrong.

[Solomon Grundy]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
So I guess all the terrorists currently residing in Iraq just spawned from the sand?

I guess all that money that Saddam paid off to palestinian terrorists can go unanswered too?


Oh yeah I forgot Iraq was a sovereign nation before we invaded....no threat at all. Hell I think Saddam should be offered the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ok sarcasm off.

Iraq sits square in the middle. Makes for a good location for installing a Democracy.

I won't debate anything else. Because I'm right.

No the terrorists flooded in after the invasion through the porous boarders . And you must distinguish between actual "terrorists" and those fighting the occupation.

Ya, Noble Peace Prize that is what we have been suggesting all along.

You won't debate because you are close minded.

Installing democracy? How does that work?

[tie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Personally, I like the mental image of OBL becoming more and more weary of the desperate fugitive existence, never able to stay in any one place for very long...wondering which of his co-horts will one day cash him in for the $25 million bounty.

It's amazing how the conservatives in this forum have followed Bush even as he throttles down the war on terror. You are saying that we don't need to catch Osama Bin Laden. spacefreak and a few others in another thread were saying that 9/11 wasn't important because more people are killed by drunk drivers.

Kerry is right on when he says we need to catch Bin Laden and shut Al Qaeda down. Bush asked Kerry where he would find the money to do that.

I think Bush flip-flops have just splintered his conservative base. Half his supporters would rather have a tax cut than defend ourselves against the terrorists. The other half would rather throw the money at politically connected defense contractors building a missile defense shield than protect our borders from the true nuclear threat. The third half (Bush math, we'll grow our way out of the deficit) thinks Bush needs to focus on drunk driving. I guess all halves share the view that terrorism isn't worth worrying about.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
spacefreak and a few others in another thread were saying that 9/11 wasn't important because more people are killed by drunk drivers.

You're full of sh-t. I never, ever stated that.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:

Installing democracy? How does that work?

You download a disk image and double click! Do keep up!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
Bush math, we'll grow our way out of the deficit.

We've grown out of every other defecit we've ever had.

[OldManMac]

This just in! Someone was able to get copies of Bush's debate notes!

http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
You won't debate because you are close minded.

Installing democracy? How does that work?

Debating only works to sway a third party. I think by now at least here on the MacNN Political forum there are few to sway. Close mindedness is equal opportunity and I see it just as bad if not worse from "free spirited" liberal types.

Installing a democracy works only if the people themselves wish it. Since most of the libs here seem to think it cannot work then they are indeed the close minded ones. Funny how libs think the minority opinion is always the correct opinion. Thus the insurgents even though they are out numbered are the ones in the right and the big bad USA are in the wrong. It is this thinking alone which makes me spend time arguing here.

It would be nice if for once partisianship could be laid aside and actual facts could be argued. Unfortunately in today's world this is an almost impossible task. Maybe it's always been like this and I am now old enough to understand it.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by KarlG:
This just in! Someone was able to get copies of Bush's debate notes!

http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/

Perfect example: Here we have a 50 year old man who squanders whatever life he has left on Bush jokes.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Perfect example: Here we have a 50 year old man who squanders whatever life he has left on Bush jokes.

Don't get your panties in a wad, junior. It's a joke. You know nothing about me "squandering what life he has left." That may be as funny as the jokes I posted! In fact, it may be even funnier.

Come to think about, it, your reply is about what one could expect. It's typical of your contributions here; all smack and no substance.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
Sorry but I am not going to do a search to prove somebody else's claim.


I would hardly call giving money to the families of suicide bombing the "worst kind of terrorism" . Is that up there with 9/11? Besides the US government has supported groups in the past that might be deemed as terrorists by some
I hate to break it to you but it is not 1942 and even if it was Germany started a war with an unprovoked attack. Iraq did not.
I am sorry but this is not clear at all. There is no evidence that Saddam supported OBL and his cohorts.

Humanitarian abuses within one's on own country are not terrorism they are humanitarian abuses.
Avoiding a second front by creating a new one in Iraq? ... I get it
Face the facts it was a diversion from OBL and if you believe otherwise you are wrong.

You know Grundy, there are times when I post simply to debate. It's a fun sort of mental/literary test of skill.

But at some time or another I sometimes take time to re-examine my truths and beliefs in the face of new information.

I think it makes me a better citizen and it was responsible for my own political flip-flop.

It's clear you refuse to search any of the posts here at MacNN or do a google to re-examine your own beliefs that you may find the truth.

But you assert I'm wrong in my beliefs. This may be. However the passion of your argument suggests you have evidence which supports a different conclusion than mine.

Once again, in the search for truth, I'm open to becoming more enlightened.

I guess what I'm saying is, put up or shut up.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by KarlG:
This just in! Someone was able to get copies of Bush's debate notes!

http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/

For what it's worth, I liked the notes!

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Perfect example: Here we have a 50 year old man who squanders whatever life he has left on Bush jokes.

Here we go again! The elderly just don't belong in your world do they?

Everyone over 30 should be put in camps.

Sorry Karl I know You aren't THAT elderly.

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
It's clear to me that the forces in Afghanistan have been free to search for al Qaeda and OBL without serious attacks from outside Afghanistan is because of the President's decision to eliminate the ONLY major player in the region with the ability and/or intent to complicate that search and/or escalate the hostilities into a more widespread, more intense engagement.

I'll bet the forces on the ground in Afghanistan are GRATEFUL the President was 'watching their backs.'

You're suggesting that Saddam needed to be eliminated so that the US could go into Afghanistan!

Uh, when last did you look at a map of the Middle East? Remember when Saddam DID still have Scuds? What was their maximum range? No fly zones over 2/3 of Iraq - how do you expect the Iraqi Army to even get to Afghanistan? Besides, did you bother to check which side of the War on Terror Iraq was on? Oh, will you look at that, they SUPPORTED the War on Terror! Oh my, they even offered TWICE to extradite one of the guys responsible for the first WTC bombing - and were rejected both time.

If you are seriously suggesting that Saddam could have projected power or would have projected power in such a way as to make the US's life in Afghanistan a misery, then you are seriously delusional. Iraq's army NEVER had that capability at its peak. It didn't even have the power to successfully launch a defensive campaign let alone an offensive one against any of its neighbours!

By the way, speaking of putting up or shutting up, we're still waiting for the examples of the "worst terrorism" that emanated from Iraq.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by KarlG:
This just in! Someone was able to get copies of Bush's debate notes!

http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/

I think this one is better, for what it's worth:
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/51/1402/640/debate.jpg

[Mithras]

(Personal) Victory!

My brother-in-law, who voted for Gore in 2000, was transformed into a Bush supporter by 9/11 and his support of Sharon (he's an Israel hawk). Coming into this election, he wanted to support whichever candidate he felt would do a better job of containing (or bombing) Iran.

The debate has changed his mind. Kerry's response to the Iran question convinced him that Bush has not been on top of the issue, and that Kerry is serious. The Tora Bora "outsourcing" comment won him over as well -- he now buys the criticism that Bush, despite his steadfast convictions, is simply too incompetent to manage our affairs effectively.

Score one swing vote. (Along with many others)

[constrictor]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Kerry SAYS a lot of things.

"This is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true."

SAYS a lot of ****, indeed.

[Cody Dawg]

aberdeenwriter
Cody Dawg, your message box is full.

You're right...it WAS full! I could hardly believe all the messages in there. Tried to respond to as many as I could.

Anyway, what's the haps on this thread? I was trying to catch up and my eyes are crossing.



How are you today, constrictor?

Hope everyone is holding on tight! This thread is moving fast and furious and all over the place.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
How are you today, constrictor?

Doing great, thanks. The magazine arrived. Frightening.

[Cody Dawg]

LOL!

Anyway, this thread is all over the place.

One thing we told our brats, er -- kids, is that we're really lucky because no matter who wins the presidency this year, we have two really qualified guys who care about this country and despite some differences, they're going to protect this country.

The commercials are flying fast and thick here. Every other commercial is an advertisement for one candidate or another. Must be BIG bucks.

[MindFad]

Uhhh, this thread is great.