Bush's Secret War Plan

Originally Posted by Yudolindo

Saddam was not inconsequential.

Why ? Because he has WMD ? Because he is imminent threat ? Did he attack the US or have the capability to do so ?

[Spence]

Because he was thought to be critical to Mr Bush's 2004 election campaign.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by camasterton

Your right, Those who support terrorism don't.

That's priceless. Anyone who opposes the occupation of their country is a terrorist? Cam, you'd have fit in fine with the British Empire in North America, circa 1778.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by twobits

tell me this is a miss print,no one in their right mind would want AL "save the trees "GORE in any position of power.I won"t be able to sleep tonight just thinking about that horror.

Hey, good point. Anyone who likes trees must be nuts.

This, my fellow Americans, is a typical Republican in 2004. Hope you're proud of him.

[suppitty]

how long can republicans go on ignoring the facts? there are a ton of quotes from bush people before the war, "there is absolutely no question that sadaam hussein has wmd's". hmmmmm that is about as accurate as ramsey's pass to lc on a 2pt conv. vs philly. it has also become clear that the saudi government knew about the war plans before colon powell because they knew powell would not be all for the war! everything he predcited before has happened. bush made a deal with the prince in saudi arabia to produce more oil around election time so he can claim credit for the lower gas prices!! this is corruption!!!!!!!!!! how can people ignore this.
THERE ARE MORE TERRORISTS IN IRAQ NOW THEN THERE WERE WHEN SADAAM WAS IN POWER.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Spence

Hey, good point. Anyone who likes trees must be nuts.

This, my fellow Americans, is a typical Republican in 2004. Hope you're proud of him.

Dont lump me in with him: the Dems have started more wars than Republicans since the Civil War.
Republicans:
Lincoln, McKinley, Bush II
Democrats:
Wilson, FDR, Truman, Johnson(or Kennedy)

[Spence]

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with your definition of who started wars. I'd argue that FDR and Wilson did not start wars, but responded to obvious provocations. In both cases, the U.S. was suffering a loss of lives. [U.S. shipping torpedoed by Germany in WW1 and Pearl Harbor in WW2.] Truman had the entire United Nations behind him in Korea. But, in any case, Akhorus, I wasn't lumping you in with that other person. He's a typical Republican. You, alas, are not. Not anymore.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Spence

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with your definition of who started wars. I'd argue that FDR and Wilson did not start wars, but responded to obvious provocations. In both cases, the U.S. was suffering a loss of lives. [U.S. shipping torpedoed by Germany in WW1 and Pearl Harbor in WW2.] Truman had the entire United Nations behind him in Korea. But, in any case, Akhorus, I wasn't lumping you in with that other person. He's a typical Republican. You, alas, are not. Not anymore.

Good point

Not anymore?

[Yudolindo]

Originally Posted by DC_Cowboys

Why ? Because he has WMD ? Because he is imminent threat ? Did he attack the US or have the capability to do so ?

He attacked our allies and had the capability to do it again. To say he is of not an immediate concern is one thing, but a mad man who hates us running a country is most certainly not inconsequential. It is a big deal in fact and he would have to have been delt with one way or another.