Iraq is a Disaster Mr. Bush

[Clem D]

Recent Intelligence shows what anyone with a brain new at least a year ago. That Iraq is in chaos and not getting any better. Even a possibility of civil war.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/



However Mr Bush says the Cia is just guessing about Iraq. Mr Bush if you know more than the Cia you need to dismatle that group and rebuild it. What is funny is if the CiA is wrong on Iraq and just guessing, I guess that means we went to war on a guess.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/

 

[Clem D]

Someone translate this to rainman

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

whine complain, whine complian, whine complain lol

Funny your candidate must not have a brain then......he said he would have taken the same path as Bush did in Iraq. He voted for using force dumbass.

Everyone knows this is true but as a typical democrat, this never would have entered your mind. Keep throwing up your negative propoganda. I'm glad you are doing your part to "help America". Your parents should be proud.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Clem As both are candidates for commander and chief and considering the debate on differnet stances on each is unknown at this time----answer this question.

In comparisons of the their statements and stances Which of the two do you think
A. has positve or negative influence on troup morale
B has positvie or negative influence on Iraq's that are on the fence
C Has postive or negative influence on the terrorist.

Think about it??????????---then tell me who you think the military-Iraqi's and terrorist are pulling for in Nov.

Seems Kerry finally had news conference and most questions from reporters was on his flip-floping on Iraq issues --which he tried to spin that he has not-----
you tell me---

"Iraq, however, has been the source of the most damaging charges of equivocation and wind-shifting against Kerry. The Massachusetts senator voted for the Iraq war in October 2002, but a year later voted against Bush's request for $87 billion for military and reconstruction spending in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites). The latter vote came when former Vermont governor Howard Dean (news - web sites)'s antiwar candidacy was ascendant. The vote may have been wise politics at the time, but came with a high price -- lending an aura of plausibility to the subsequent charges by Bush that Kerry is motivated by opportunism.

Kerry's statements have compounded the damage. In September 2003, he said at a Democratic debate, "We should not send more American troops" to Iraq. "That would be the worst thing." In April, he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "if it requires more troops . . . that's what you have to do." In August, he told ABC's "This Week" that if elected, "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops." This week, he said that, as president, he would not have launched an invasion if he had known that there was not clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction or ties to al Qaeda, though last month he said, knowing these things, he still would have voted to give Bush congressional authority to wage the Iraq war.

 

[Chanman]

http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=540294.html

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Still waiting for your answer Clem but don't feel bad the reporter from NBC had same response when Bush stated same about 4 hours later

"Bush tried to reinforce one of the major themes of his campaign: that Kerry shifts his views to suit the political climate of the moment. "I believe a leader must be consistent and clear and not change positions when times get tough. And the times have been hard," Bush said. "But I understand what mixed messages do. You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages. You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages. You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages."

 

[hammer1]

Al Quada pulling for Bush big time................
Head of Pakistani Intelligence said Al Quada love Bush..... They think he's an idiot... Bush let Bin laden escape in Tora Bora when he had him cornered.and they love how he's falling right into their hands in Iraq where they can bleed us to death.they liken the US to a giant Anaconda that is eaten alive by red ants.
Insiders say Bush already looking for ways to bail out....perhaps declare victory and cut and run.
Oh and Mr Manson...Heard from some working girls u Republicans love to wear ladies underwear.what size are u...got some for ya.jus gotta wash out the skid marks an ur in business. Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Chanman]

Al Qaeda does not exist and never has

Al Qaeda does not exist and never has

08/19/2004 13:31
The basic truth is that Al Qaeda does not exist and never has. Al Qaeda is a manufactured enemy who was created by the Bush Administration in order to have an excuse to wage a war for the control of the world"s oil resources.
Did an American even hear the words "Al Qaeda" before 9-11? Or were we told that its alleged leader Osama Bin Laden has family who themselves have personal business relationships with George W. Bush"s family and that both families had financially profited considerably from the "War on Terror"?

If "Al Qaeda" was such an organized group terrorists as we are being told then why weren"t we the people notified of this evil threat when the US Cole was bombed a few months before 9-11? "Al Qaeda" is nothing more than a broad euphemistic umbrella classification used to group any Middle Eastern fighter under the Sun as an enemy. The most diabolical aspect of this public relations stunt is that it enables the current Administration to label any group it feels necessary to attack to appear to be related to an unprovable organized enemy while at the same time actually increasing its approval ratings by exploiting the basic primal fears of the American public. Furthermore when one realizes the questionable motivations that this Administration has used previously to attack an enemy, as what is now surfacing about the Iraq War, one begins to get the strange feeling that this Orwellian double-speak is nothing more than a smoke and mirror illusion whose true intentions would of made Goebbels himself jealous.

Think about it: How could a bunch of technologically unadvanced group of people from third-world nations such as "Al Qaeda" ever have any real central organization structure? If they had any real organization they would have most certainly attacked us again after September eleventh. Where are all the terrorist cells in this country? Contrary to what has been implicitly presented in the media there HAS NEVER been a single domestic terror cell caught since Bush has been in office! The majority of suspects that have been arrested and detained in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 with the exception of a handful have not been charged with crimes in anyway associated with terrorism. All of their crimes are minor and for the most part are ! related to immigration violations of some sort. There is some ambiguity in all of this though because to this day the Ashcroft Justice Department has been less than forthcoming with the specifics of these arrests. Why would this be the case if the justifications for these arrests were really legitimate? We have been bombarded by the media with every indignity from the duck-tape chronicles to the crop dusting threat. You would think that with all this seeming sensitivity by our government about informing the general populace about possible terror threats, especially when some of their sources came from "unnamed and confidential secondary sources", that the Ashcroft Justice Department would have gone out of it"s way to mention to the public any terrorist connections that the people detained after 9-11 had and would of sworn by it on a stack of Bibles.

To date the only really suspicious activity of people detained after 9-11 were a group of Israelis who were caught in Jersey City, New Jersey filming themselves in the foreground of the burning World Trade Center with "looks of jubilation on their faces". It was later confirmed that two of the gentlemen detained had known Mossad ties. While they were detained it is of no matter now as they were subsequently released from jail a few! weeks later and were allowed to go back to Israel with no questions asked by the direct authorization of the Justice Department. I guess they were just dropping off a box of cigars to Governor McGreevy?

What is even more illuminating about all of this is that to this day nobody has taken responsibility for the attacks of 9-11, including "Al Qaeda". The only thing to link these attacks to anyone is the video tape of Osama Bin Laden that was conveniently found in a cave in Afghanistan that had him talking about the physical structure of the World Trade Center and the plane strike. The audio quality of this tape is so poor that any objective Arab-speaking analyst who was asked to give their opinion was unable to do so! as they claimed that just about all the words on it were inaudible. I believe an objective investigation into this original tape"s authenticity could verify if this admission is in fact genuine and could shed some light on the truth of the existence of "Al Qaeda". But even if this tape is genuine what would this really prove? As I have already mentioned it is common knowledge that Osama Bin Laden is connected to George W. Bush"s family by a minimum of two degrees of separation. So in the grand scheme of things what does this really matter? That the Cobra Commander said he did it?

In summary, "Al Qaeda" does not exist nor has it ever. If it really existed to anywhere near the extent that we have been told then there would have been an attack on our homeland. Of course this proof of a negative is used by the Administration to justify themselves to the American public that they are doing their jobs, but when one realizes that "Al Qaeda" is really nothing more than an artificially manufactured enemy then what job are they really doing other than capitalizing off of people"s fears? What other issue does the present Administration have to offer the average working-class citizen other than security? And if security is really only a Red Herring platform issue, then of what use are they to begin with? In addition, ! if there were any degree of truth in the strength of "Al Qaeda" or even of their very existence then there would have been a much larger resistance in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq. If an organization structure existed within "Al Qaeda" then you would have seen the Iraqi resistance be a much more conventional ! one. They would have had the communication capability and weapons arsenal to mount a more traditional counter-offensive against our troops and they would have been successful doing it because our force"s numbers are so minimal. This would have been a prime opportunity to defeat "the great satan" in front of the entire world. Their motivation to do so would have been so strong that in order for them to of not of done this one must make the quantum leap and conclude that "Al Qaeda" is much to do about nothing and always has been. The emperor is naked and running through the courtyard with a great big barrel of oil.

Joseph John Hrevnack

 

[Clem D]

Sorry dogs I didn't see your question until today.

Iraq, however, has been the source of the most damaging charges of equivocation and wind-shifting against Kerry. The Massachusetts senator voted for the Iraq war in October 2002, but a year later voted against Bush's request for $87 billion for military and reconstruction spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

See This is all half true. The senator voted to give the pres authority to go to war, in order to get Saddam to let the inspectors in. Unfortunately the president was going to war no matter what.
As for the 87 billion, he voted against it because he felt some of the tax cut should have been taken back to pay for it.