State of the Union [Archive] - hailRedskins.com Fan Board

Keino

01-21-2004, 10:51 AM

For the first time I can remember, I didn't watch the S.O.U address. I just wasn't in the mood to be lied to. My 4 year old had just lied to me about taking some M & M's without permission and that was all the fibbing I could take for one evening.

Even the quote Namvet provides us is misleading at best. Most of our Deployed troops are in Iraq, a military action having nothing to do with the War on Terror. Im glad El Presidente doesn't mind continuing his linking Iraq to Terrorism through inuendo...............

jporterweb

01-21-2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I don't think the two are really comparable.

Agreed Dave there is no comparison. Vietnam was hell, and it was a horible thing. But Iraq, is a just war and one that we are winning. Troops die during peacetime from accidents, but those aren't reported like this. At least our troops that are currently losing their lives are losing it doing a job instead of in an accident. And please don't take that as I don't care that they are dying. My point is that it was a good thing that was and is being done. And the troops over there, the majority of them, know that.

Spence

01-21-2004, 11:28 AM

Amazing that Mr Bush pretty much ignored all the phony "intelligence" he was hyping just one year ago in his State of the Union speech. He used all that junk to justify his war and now he can barely mention it at all!

Well, I suppose amazing is the wrong word. Amazing if it had come out of the mouth of a lesser liar than George W Bush. From him, just par for the course.

NamVet4

01-21-2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by jporterweb
Agreed Dave there is no comparison. Vietnam was hell, and it was a horible thing. But Iraq, is a just war and one that we are winning. Troops die during peacetime from accidents, but those aren't reported like this. At least our troops that are currently losing their lives are losing it doing a job instead of in an accident. And please don't take that as I don't care that they are dying. My point is that it was a good thing that was and is being done. And the troops over there, the majority of them, know that.

jporterweb,
Please define "winning".....

And how do you know that the troops over there "know that it is a good thing"... ?

We have troops in Iraq without a defined government and leadership in that country.

We have troops in Iraq who are fighting guerilla units
and we are losing lives almost everyday in "war time" - not peacetime.

RedskinsDave

01-21-2004, 12:00 PM

For the love of christ Spence and Keino, how many times does it have to be mentioned that the intelligence given to Bush was what was wrong? It was the SAME intelligence that told Clinton there were WMD's and he believed. It was the SAME intelligence given to other world leaders who joined us in Iraq. Stop calling them lies, it's juvenile at best.

NamVet4

01-21-2004, 12:03 PM

History repeated... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4016883/)

In recent months, roadside explosives have become one of the weapons of choice among Iraqi insurgents. The bombs — usually made from mortar shells and explosives, like TNT — are routinely placed along the side of roads and detonated as American convoys pass.

Check the historical records of the Vietnam War........
You may find statements almost word for word......
~sigh~

Keino

01-21-2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
For the love of christ Spence and Keino, how many times does it have to be mentioned that the intelligence given to Bush was what was wrong? It was the SAME intelligence that told Clinton there were WMD's and he believed. It was the SAME intelligence given to other world leaders who joined us in Iraq. Stop calling them lies, it's juvenile at best.

Wait Dave...you're only speaking of WMD's. What about the links from Saddam to Al-Quada? Or about the Purchase of Uranium and Steel in Africa for the purposes of building a nuclear arsenal? He certainly had no problems stating this "Bad Intelligence" as fact in the last S.O.U Address. He went before the nation and told us all this crap existed and it has not been proven to exist.

As Spence says often, He is at best Incompetent for acting on Bad information without further investigation OR he is a Liar who knowingly deceived the people of the United States in order to go to War in Iraq. Given recent revelations, Im inclined to believe the latter, though some combination of the two would not surprise me in the least.

Clinton had the same intell and did not take our nation to war, nor did he ask the congress to Spend Billions of Dollars that the Country does not have. The policy of containing Saddam worked fine and did not exhaust our resources nor cause countless unneccesary American Deaths.
Of Course when confronted by these facts, the typical conservative response is to plug your ears with your fingers and close your eyes and speak as loudly as possible so that you can pretend that you don't hear the truth......

RedskinsDave

01-21-2004, 12:45 PM

Yeah that's it. How about maybe Clinton took such a wait and see attitude towards the middle east and terrorism as a whole that we got lax and it opened us up for an attack and maybe, working on now known incomplete evidence, Bush was not willing to do the same. You guys can keep pointing fingers and yelling about lies but I know damn sure I feel alot safer knowing this president sent guys over to kick some ass instead of waiting to see if they could kill a few thousand more of us.

Typical liberal response, you don't need to bother plugging your ears cause you're so used to screaming so loud anyways.

Keino

01-21-2004, 12:57 PM

LOL. Fair enough Dave. As I said before (on another thread), it's a matter of who you believe. I don't feel any safer, now than before 9/11, in fact quite the opposite. I feel my American Pasport has made me more of a Target not less of one.

I certainly don't blame Clinton for 9/11 and I certainly have yet to see the tie that Iraq has to Al-Quada that even you are alluding to....not that Im calling you a liar...only a believer of lies :)

For the record, if there was ever a piece of evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, I would most likely change my stance........to date that has not happenned. Again tell me the clear and present Danger Iraq presented when our task in Afghanistan was still not complete?

lakewinola

01-21-2004, 01:02 PM

This crusade is what scares other parts of the world. No one knows where it will stop, when we are done with Iraq, every single point you make can be applied to about 3-4 other countries in the middle east. We are looking at a 20 year war in the middle east as we invade every country we suspect could be a threat in the future.

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Yeah that's it. How about maybe Clinton took such a wait and see attitude towards the middle east and terrorism as a whole that we got lax and it opened us up for an attack and maybe, working on now known incomplete evidence, Bush was not willing to do the same. You guys can keep pointing fingers and yelling about lies but I know damn sure I feel alot safer knowing this president sent guys over to kick some ass instead of waiting to see if they could kill a few thousand more of us.

Typical liberal response, you don't need to bother plugging your ears cause you're so used to screaming so loud anyways.

RedskinsDave

01-21-2004, 02:26 PM

Gee Lake, I missed that part of the plan.

Spence

01-21-2004, 02:27 PM

What's juvenile is denying the obvious. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
-George W. Bush Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
-Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
-Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003 I'm supposed to believe they just misinterpreted the intelligence? Well, what about all the intelligence officers who said there was just as much, if not more, evidence showing that Iraq had no WMD? How about Mr Bush using that phony African yellowcake uranium story in his 2003 State of the Union address, AFTER being told by the CIA and the State Dept that it was FALSE?!

He's a liar, Dave. You don't want to admit, but it is obvious. He avoided the whole issue last night because he's a gutless worm--now and 30 years ago when he let better men like John Kerry and Wesley Clark do the fighting for him.

Harry S. Truman said "The buck stops here." George W Bush [and his followers] say "Don't look at me!" Instead of owning up to his deceit and taking responsibility for them, he's desperately laying off the blame on the intelligence community--the same people his administration was attacking in 2002 because they refused to tell him what he wanted to hear. Because they refused to lie to the nation as Bush has done. Because they refused to betray democracy and decency on behalf of a phony war waged because Mr Bush boasted he would catch the real culprit--Osama--and then failed miserably to keep his word.

Typical right wing response from you, Dave. So busy singing "Proud to be an American" and dreaming about bombing Lithuania that you refuse to see the ugly truth staring you right in the face.

Spence

01-21-2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Gee Lake, I missed that part of the plan. That's because you only notice what you want.

lakewinola

01-21-2004, 02:29 PM

Tell me why we went to Iraq.

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Gee Lake, I missed that part of the plan.

Spence

01-21-2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by lakewinola
Tell me why we went to Iraq. Stated reason: To destroy WMD that threatened the whole word and parts of Saturn.

Real reasons: Couldn't find Osama. Thought it would be easy. Good business for Bechtel, Halliburton, other companies that have bankrolled Mr Bush's political career. Gives Mr Bush a chance to pretend to be a soldier and make people forget that his daddy got him a plum spot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Show them damn Aaaarabs who is boss. Get our hands on all that oil. Use Iraq as a base to intimidate and/or invade Syria and Iran. Boost those sagging poll numbers.

Skinzaholic

01-21-2004, 02:41 PM

The bottom line is... the majority of the citizens of the United States of America disagree with Spence, Keino, Lake, and the throngs of Liberals on this site.

Most people with any sort of intelligence at all are less likely to place their trust in a madman then in our own President. Yet, the democrats will distort the facts just enough to make it seem that there is a master deceiver at work who hates Iraq and Saddam Hussain.

If we all stop simply regurgitating the media mess we would come to realize that we have no real way of ever knowing what is going on in Iraq because we arehere in America... half the world away.

In 10 months, the American people will once again show by their voice that they believe George W. Bush is the best President we have had since Ronald Reagan. Wrong information or not.

And Keino - I do believe you are probably the only person in this nation who can say he feels "less safe" since Sept 11th.

Spence

01-21-2004, 02:44 PM

Kevin, I can cite you a whole bunch of polls that show you most Americans DO NOT feel more safe and most Americans have grave doubts about Mr Bush's Iraq policy. Shall I do so?

Minnesota Mike

01-21-2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by lakewinola
Tell me why we went to Iraq.

We went to Iraq for the same reason we went to Afganistan -
OIL.

The Taliban couldn't be bought off by the Oil companies, so they were removed by US military.

Saddam wouldn't play nice with the Oil companies, so he was removed by the US military.

RedskinsDave

01-21-2004, 02:49 PM

I do love all the righteous grandstanding dems are pulling now. Lies, lies, lies! Let me know when he gets impeached for lying (Clinton). Let me know when he is directly tied into illegal business deals (Clinton). Oh that's right, when slick Willie was doing those things between getting hummers from subordinates, you righteous fellas just fell by the wayside. Nice to know your moral high ground has a hydraulic lift on it.

Skinzaholic

01-21-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Kevin, I can cite you a whole bunch of polls that show you most Americans DO NOT feel more safe and most Americans have grave doubts about Mr Bush's Iraq policy. Shall I do so?

If you can find some that are not laced with the Democratic Filter... I would be interested in seeing them. Not saying thery dont exist... because if anyone can find them...

Skinzaholic

01-21-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Minnesota Mike
We went to Iraq for the same reason we went to Afganistan -
OIL.

The Taliban couldn't be bought off by the Oil companies, so they were removed by US military.

Saddam wouldn't play nice with the Oil companies, so he was removed by the US military.

Mike - any proof of this?

Spence

01-21-2004, 02:59 PM

Increasingly weak and pathetic, Dave. Changing the subject is a pretty obvious sign you know the facts are beating you down but you don't want to admit it.

Name on illegal business dealing President Clinton was tied to. Not an accusation. Not a crazy allegation in some right-wing rag. Give me some actual evidence. Because if you can, you should be a bigshot in the legal field. After all, Ken Starr spent five years and $65 million and had to admit before Congress that he HAD NO EVIDENCE of any illegal business dealings involving the Clintons. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Goosegg. Doughnut. Bagel. NOTHING! So what evidence have you got that Ken Starr couldn't find with his unlimited staff and his unlimited budget? Let's have a look at it!

Clinton was impeached because the GOP controlled the House and could do it. They couldn't get a conviction in the Senate, though. Not on anything. Hell, they couldn't even get a majority despite the fact that they controlled a majority in the Senate.

You're right about one thing, though--I didn't give a rat's ass about Bill Clinton lying about his sex life. Made no difference to me at all. You know why: It had nothing to do with me. A consensual affair between two adults is none of my business. The view of an evil liberal? Well, I suppose--if two-thirds of the American public is made up of evil liberals. That's how many people thought the GOP was wasting time and money on a preposterous and partisan pursuit of a man who did the one thing they could never forgive: kick their asses on election day.

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:00 PM

Kevin, what in the world is "Democratic Filter"? Is that a code name for anything you don't like and don't want to know about?

Skinzaholic

01-21-2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Kevin, what in the world is "Democratic Filter"? Is that a code name for anything you don't like and don't want to know about?

Come on Tom... you and I both know that isnt my tactic. If anything... it is a well known Liberal defense (used many times in this forum).

I suppose a "Democratic Filter" would be the mass of sites which post reports and polls which are one-sidedly Liberal in support. Such as NewsMax.com is Republican hot air.

lakewinola

01-21-2004, 03:06 PM

Since you brought up Reagan "the greatest man in history". I thought it appropriate to point out that Regan left afghanistan in the hand of the taliban and Al-queda. It was Reagan that put Saddam in power and supplied him with most of his weapons. And it was Reagan that ran up deficit and created the resession of the 1990's.

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
The bottom line is... the majority of the citizens of the United States of America disagree with Spence, Keino, Lake, and the throngs of Liberals on this site.

Most people with any sort of intelligence at all are less likely to place their trust in a madman then in our own President. Yet, the democrats will distort the facts just enough to make it seem that there is a master deceiver at work who hates Iraq and Saddam Hussain.

If we all stop simply regurgitating the media mess we would come to realize that we have no real way of ever knowing what is going on in Iraq because we arehere in America... half the world away.

In 10 months, the American people will once again show by their voice that they believe George W. Bush is the best President we have had since Ronald Reagan. Wrong information or not.

And Keino - I do believe you are probably the only person in this nation who can say he feels "less safe" since Sept 11th.

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:10 PM

Kevin, I don't know about any liberals in here doing that, though we do enjoy pointing out the obvious bias of Fox News. But hey, when the head of Fox News admits he gives political advice to the Bush White House, he should probably expect to be called a Bush stooge.

But I would not cite internal Democratic polls to you. Or anyone, really. Internal party polls can be useful for some things, but I place limited trust in them. I'm talking about groups like Gallup, Zogby and respected news organizations that have been polling for decades. I'll show you a few of them.

RedskinsDave

01-21-2004, 03:15 PM

Well you walked right into that one. Why don't you show me the indictment Bush received for "lying". I mean hell if he lied, surely he would be indicted like your boy. Why don't you show me proof they didn't have intelligence that told him what he told us. Go ahead show me that it was all made up. Oh don't go citing one or two "unnamed sources from the CIA" or "unnamed source from the White House". I want proof. Oh, what's that, there isn't any. Maybe it's all buried in some land in Whitewater.

Skinzaholic

01-21-2004, 03:15 PM

Here is a poll from CNN/USA Today/Gallop which addresses this topic...

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

War On Terrorism
All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polls listed chronologically.
.

.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 9-11, 2004. N=513 adults nationwide. MoE ± 5.

.

"How likely is it that there will be further acts of terrorism in the United States over the next several weeks: very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?"

Very Likely Some-what Not Too Not At All No Opinion
% % % % %
1/04 7 39 36 16 2
8/03 10 44 35 10 1
7/03 7 33 41 16 3
5/03 12 45 32 8 3
3/03 21 52 20 6 1
2/03 16 50 23 9 2
9/13 12 44 31 10 3
9/2 12 48 28 9 3
7/02 15 41 30 12 2
5/02 21 44 25 7 3
3/02 9 43 32 13 3
12/01 17 45 27 8 3
11/01 24 50 16 6 4
10/01 40 45 10 3 2

*** Notice that fear levels are MUCH lower since right after 9/11.

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:24 PM

From the latest Newsweek poll:

"In general, do you think Americans are safer and more secure now that Saddam Hussein has been captured?"

Yes, safer: 43%
No, not safer: 53%
Don't know: 4%

NOTE: Newsweek is owned by The Washington Post, which endorsed Mr Bush's invasion of Iraq.

From the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll :

"Again thinking about the goals versus the costs of the war, so far in your opinion has there been an acceptable or unacceptable number of U.S. military casualties in Iraq?"

Acceptable: 34%
Unacceptable: 62%
Don't know: 4%

And that partially explains these poll numbers...

From the latest Zogby poll

"If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote: the Republican George W. Bush or the Democratic candidate?"

Bush: 41%
Democrat: 45%
Other: 2%
Not sure: 12%

"Do you think George W. Bush deserves to be reelected as president of the United States, or is it time for someone new?"

Yes, re-elect Bush: 41%
No, find someone new: 48%

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll has somewhat better news for Mr Bush, however...

"If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for George W. Bush, the Republican, or for the Democratic nominee for president?"

Bush: 48%
Democrat: 46%
Neither: 2%
Wouldn't vote: 2%

This is a very divided electorate, Kevin. The notion that Mr Bush has broad support among the American people and is only opposed by a cabal of abortion-worshipping evil liberals just does not fit the facts. To Mr Bush's credit, his campaign advisors know this and are sensibly preparing for a very tough fight. He's been raising money like a maniac.

NamVet4

01-21-2004, 03:24 PM

I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about ***** is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.

Where you see the ***** substitute :
a - Iraq
b - Vietnam

Source of the quote - read down (http://www.geocities.com/47ipsd/47vnwar.htm) speech, November 3, 1969

Minnesota Mike

01-21-2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Mike - any proof of this?

I'll assume that you aren't asking for proof that the Taliban and Saddam were removed from power by the US Military, but rather the first part of each of my statements is what you are concerned with.

I'm not really sure what would consitute proof. I would recommend this book as a starting place. Read it and let me know what you think at that point. And keep in mind the author is no lover of Clinton. He has some pretty harsh words for Clinton in the book.

http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1283

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
*** Notice that fear levels are MUCH lower since right after 9/11. Well, I suspect that pretty much figures. After the terror attacks the country was on high alert, whereas the country was asleep at the switch prior to those attacks. A successful terror attack would have been less likely after the 9/11 atrocities.

That does not really have anything to do with Iraq, however. I mean, Mr Bush didn't attack Iraq until March 2003--about 18 months after the 9/11 attacks.

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Well you walked right into that one. Why don't you show me the indictment Bush received for "lying". I mean hell if he lied, surely he would be indicted like your boy. Why don't you show me proof they didn't have intelligence that told him what he told us. Go ahead show me that it was all made up. Oh don't go citing one or two "unnamed sources from the CIA" or "unnamed source from the White House". I want proof. Oh, what's that, there isn't any. Maybe it's all buried in some land in Whitewater. Dave, you're not making any sense at all. There is no such thing as an indictment for lying. Lying isn't against the law. When it results in death, of course, it violates every moral law in the universe, but it is not against the law. Immoral, yes. Illegal, no.

But you're missing the point again, Dave. Look at the quotes I've cited numerous times. The White House said repeatedly that the knew Saddam Hussein had WMD and they knew where those WMD were located. They have not uncovered so much as a single spore of anthrax in Iraq. They couldn't possibly have known, therefore. They suspected. They had no proof, yet they claimed to have proof. Suspecting Saddam Hussein of having WMD is one thing. They didn't claim to suspect it. They claimed to KNOW it. That's something far different. In fact, they didn't know. If they did, we'd see the evidence. But there is none.

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:43 PM

It's a tough position for Mr Bush's blind followers, I certainly do concede that. If he's not lying then he's an incompetent boob. Dave and Kevin are going with the incompetent boob defense. Understandable, perhaps, but not terribly dignified. But what else can they do? Aside from acknowledging the obvious, I mean.

TexSkin

01-21-2004, 03:45 PM

Sorry Spence I got to vote for Bush for re-election. Why you say. Simple, The Redskins have never won a Superbowl with a Democrat in office. Gibbs is back we need a Superbowl baby!! :D

RedskinsDave

01-21-2004, 03:47 PM

Again, bad intelligence, not lies. Did you see Powell at the UN? You think he was intentionally lying when he pointed to objects and said they were WMD facilities? Do you really think he'd go out of his way to lie to the entire UN? Well I don't. Think what you will of Bush but that would be one hell of a conspiracy to get all those people, including other world leaders, to all agree to lie in order to start a war.

Minnesota Mike

01-21-2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by TexSkin
Sorry Spence I got to vote for Bush for re-election. Why you say. Simple, The Redskins have never won a Superbowl with a Democrat in office. Gibbs is back we need a Superbowl baby!! :D

This might be the only reason that might find some agreement here. It certainly is a better reason than any other I have heard!

lakewinola

01-21-2004, 03:49 PM

Spence, if you take note in the poll there is a huge spike in the lead up to war in Iraq.

Originally posted by Spence
Well, I suspect that pretty much figures. After the terror attacks the country was on high alert, whereas the country was asleep at the switch prior to those attacks. A successful terror attack would have been less likely after the 9/11 atrocities.

That does not really have anything to do with Iraq, however. I mean, Mr Bush didn't attack Iraq until March 2003--about 18 months after the 9/11 attacks.

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by TexSkin
Sorry Spence I got to vote for Bush for re-election. Why you say. Simple, The Redskins have never won a Superbowl with a Democrat in office. Gibbs is back we need a Superbowl baby!! :D Yeah, I know about that. Best reason to vote GOP. Only reason. :)

lakewinola

01-21-2004, 03:53 PM

They never won with a republican congress either.

Originally posted by TexSkin
Sorry Spence I got to vote for Bush for re-election. Why you say. Simple, The Redskins have never won a Superbowl with a Democrat in office. Gibbs is back we need a Superbowl baby!! :D

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Again, bad intelligence, not lies. Did you see Powell at the UN? You think he was intentionally lying when he pointed to objects and said they were WMD facilities? Do you really think he'd go out of his way to lie to the entire UN? Well I don't. Think what you will of Bush but that would be one hell of a conspiracy to get all those people, including other world leaders, to all agree to lie in order to start a war. Yes, I do think Powell lied. In fact, I know it. Powell's former chief of intelligence resigned in 2002 over this nonsense and he has said publicly on numerous occasions that Powell lied repeatedly to the U.N. You believe Powell. Fine. Just be aware that my version has all the evidence and yours has none.

As for world leaders, all but Tony Blair were relying solely on what the U.S. administration told them and have said as much. Mr Blair is in his own hot water for lying to Parliament.

Spence

01-21-2004, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by lakewinola
They never won with a republican congress either. LOL Good point!

TexSkin

01-21-2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by lakewinola
They never won with a republican congress either.
So true, down with Republican congress!! I have suffered so long without a Superbowl. :(

RedskinsDave

01-21-2004, 03:59 PM

Oookee Blair too huh? Yeah, they're all liars. unreal. Come on, everyone now...."liar liar pants on fire!!!!"

Spence

01-21-2004, 04:02 PM

The Redskins Super Bowl appearances and federal politics

1972
President: Republican
Senate: Democrat
House: Democrat

1982
President: Republican
Senate: Republican
House: Democrat

1983
President: Republican
Senate: Republican
House: Democrat

1987
President: Republican
Senate: Democrat
House: Democrat

1991
President: Republican
Senate: Democrat
House: Democrat

Spence

01-21-2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Oookee Blair too huh? Yeah, they're all liars. unreal. Come on, everyone now...."liar liar pants on fire!!!!" Yeah, that's pretty much what the British public is saying. Of course, the Parliament is also investigating him, so they're being a bit more responsible than the U.S. government.

Ford

01-21-2004, 04:06 PM

Too many points to address but all I'm going to say is this... Bush made a few points i agreed with .. but he HAD to go and continue to mention WMDs, which are not there and his claim they were never affected my decision to support the war.

Also, claims about the economy on the uprise are completely bogus until jobs start appearing. An 'economic recovery' without creation of jobs is useless, right now it's just rich guys in the stock market making back some of the money they lost.

Spence

01-21-2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Ford
Also, claims about the economy on the uprise are completely bogus until jobs start appearing. An 'economic recovery' without creation of jobs is useless, right now it's just rich guys in the stock market making back some of the money they lost. You got that right. Bush's daddy learned that lesson.

Keino

01-21-2004, 04:25 PM

LOL Dave....I always assumed the reason we never get Full body shots of G Dub at the podium is that his pants really are on fire;)

dukeuch

01-21-2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Yeah that's it. How about maybe Clinton took such a wait and see attitude towards the middle east and terrorism as a whole that we got lax and it opened us up for an attack and maybe, working on now known incomplete evidence, Bush was not willing to do the same. You guys can keep pointing fingers and yelling about lies but I know damn sure I feel alot safer knowing this president sent guys over to kick some ass instead of waiting to see if they could kill a few thousand more of us.

Typical liberal response, you don't need to bother plugging your ears cause you're so used to screaming so loud anyways.

Or maybe Clinton accurately identified Bin Laden as the most dangerous terrorist force in the world, created a blueprint for coordinaitng the activities of our various intelligence organizations to deal with this and other terrorist threats, which was politely ignored by the Bush administration until 9/11.

rskinsfan10

01-21-2004, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Skinzaholic

And Keino - I do believe you are probably the only person in this nation who can say he feels "less safe" since Sept 11th.

Uh, no he's not. Count me in that group also. I'm sure that he and I aren't the only two either.

Hell, my wife just walked by, looked at what I was typing, and told me that I could count her in with us also.

DC_Cowboys

01-21-2004, 10:49 PM

And Keino - I do believe you are probably the only person in this nation who can say he feels "less safe" since Sept 11th.

Oh sure. I guess you are the only one who didn't notice code orange alert.

Ford

01-22-2004, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
And Keino - I do believe you are probably the only person in this nation who can say he feels "less safe" since Sept 11th.

Oh sure. I guess you are the only one who didn't notice code orange alert.

You mean that funny little system they lower when they know threats are coming so that they don't have to put it on red and look bad politically? Yea, I love that system.