Please hide for a while said Tony

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Tony Blair running for re-election and is hoping folks for get his love affair with Mr Bush. Last poll in England shows Bush's numbers down to 34%.
Question was does Mr Bush have a clue. And would you vote for him. He may take Tony down.
I guess with the truth now out about Iraq. May have changed our election to.
I like Tony so I hope he wins. There are many days I wish he was our king.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,556
214
63
"the bunker"
pretty sure ,blair wins.....the labour party losses some oomph in parliament,though......

djv,i`m glad you stated you like blair....you should...he`s a liberal socialist........i could care less what governmental(social) internal philosophy the british utilize....

he`s the best friend we have in europe..internationally.......anybody that wishes blair bad luck in the election is nuts...if he cares about america....

yes,he supported the war in iraq....yes,many of you hate bush more than al qaida...and i believe that many on this board would prefer that we fail in iraq..just to see bush fail.......even if you`d never ,ever admit it.......

but,it`s not in our country`s best interests to lose blair right now...

it`s good for america to have a staunch ally in britain...we need them figuratively even more than we need them literally....

before anybody slams blair because he backed bush in iraq,think about the bigger picture...and what`s good for your country(if you are american)......
 
Last edited:

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
If Blair wins can we print in the newspaper's front page that thre British are idiots?

Unfortunately the Conservative party in GB lacks a sack, so people will go with the socialists. Europe, as usual, way behind the 8 ball.

Oh... and BTW, can't forget djv's usual articulate insight. Yes, he should be our "KING" :mj07:

And I bet Bush is really worried about his popularity in England. Probably in Amsterdam too.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,901
133
63
16
L.A.
I just wish we had "town meetings" with the President the way they do with their Prime Minister. I love the brutal candid questions and answers. The real definition of 'no-spin'.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
if anybody wants to watch something very interesting......tune into cspan when they show the british parliment meeting.

it's very entertaining !!!
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,493
256
83
Victory Lane
We should consider sending GM back over to England and start deportation proceedings against Blair. Lock him in a basement for 3 or 4 hours and not let him go to Ireland to continue his vacation.

I wonder if GM will find this. :mj07: :mj07:
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
GW you are so far off base in your last post it is unbelievable. I can only say that you love Mr. Bush more than you love your country. Those of us who love the country will speak up when we see it going down the wrong path. The road to Iraq was filled with lies and deceit. And your President Bush saw fit to promote or give medals to everyone who led us down that path.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,424
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
With 621 results declared by 0950 GMT, Labour had won 353 seats, compared with 196 for the Conservatives and 60 for Britain's third party the Liberal Democrats. In 2001, Labour won 412, Conservatives 166, and Liberal Democrats 52.

By the way DJV the Liberal Democrat party is the one that ran on anti Iraq campaign.

Make it a trifecta ---Bush Blair and Howard all re-elected--and you can add a couple other countries that now have elections for 1st time thanks to them ;)
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Them darn liberials over there. Well there lucky they have one and he's king as I like to say about England. Tony is smart like Clinton was. And still is.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,556
214
63
"the bunker"
c`mon stevie....what lies and deceit?....he had the intel...the congress had the intel.....and more dems. in congress actually voted for the iraqi action in 2003 than voted to remove saddam from kuwait in "91" ......WITH the u.n.`s blessings.....

as i said in the other thread that you must have missed...

"""have we forgotten that congress signed off on iraq...including many prominent democratic leaders like tom daschle,kerry,chuck schummer and "hill"........

hypocrites?....or maybe they made a sound decision based on flawed intel.....i`d say the latter...

strangely enough,the dems actually had more resistance to removing saddam from kuwait in "91".......WITH a u.n. mandate....

"91"...senate-52-47....house 250-183

iraq invasion...senate...77-23....house 296-133...

of course most of the "nays" coming from democrats...

the majority of dems actually wanted to leave saddam in kuwait and use sanctions.....lol....."""""

so,why is bush a liar?.....why is he the bad guy?.....why isn`t congress....including many prominent democrats, also culpable?

because you can`t seem to see things objectively...and that`s ashamed...

if you actually...in your heart....believe that we went into iraq to make money for haliburton or some other ridiculous reason...rather than to keep all of these radical,despotic regimes in the middle east from being the first to get nuclear weapons....and to keep saddam from popping up every 7 years as a new problem to deal with..and as a result, changing the equation in the middle east forever,then you are delusional....

because if the intel was right...and saddam had the weapons...(and i`m still not totally convinced that there might not have been something there),a saddam...or an iran...can overrun kuwait...saudi arabia...attack israel....do any number of things to totally destabilize the region...and the oil supply.....

which is utterly crucial....

and with nukes at play...in unstable hands,we are basically hamstrung.......unless we are ready for a nuclear confrontation....

which nobody sane is....unless you think that tying a bomb to your ass and killing a thousand civilians is a religious experience...


and why the rest of the world doesn`t get it,is beyond me....
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
GW they had to vote to invade Iraq. If they didn't then we would not have been able to deal with Saddam at all. Where are the WMD's and the Nukes? That is the reason he gave for going in. Defend him until you are blue in the face. I will put America first.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,493
256
83
Victory Lane
StevieD said:
we would not have been able to deal with Saddam at all. Where are the WMD's and the Nukes? That is the reason he gave for going in. Defend him until you are blue in the face. I will put America first.
........................................................

Stevie

what a whining imbecile you sound like.

If you truly put America first you will have to come around to the fact that Saddam was a no good
killing, torture master, rapist, crazed dictator.

Getting him out at all costs had to be done. Who gives two chits that we didnt find any nukes.

Just finding the millions in cash in which he could have bought him a nuke soon should be enough of a reason to go in there and take him out.

Stealing from the UN programs, torture and killing his own people by the thousands. Come on ....

Get over it Stevie.

the right thing was done. Its time to move ahead and stop trying to take Bush down. He will be gone in 3 years. Maybe we can get Hillory in there with Slick Willie again.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Scott, the President of the United States is given a sacred trust. Before he puts one American Soldier in harms way he should at least have the stones to tell the truth. If he wanted to get of Saddam because of the reasons you cite then he should not have lied to the American People. And why can't you and GW agree on the reason we went there in the first place. Tell you what, you guys come up the reason and when you can agree then we can argue about it.
 
Last edited:

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
StevieD said:
Scott, the President of the United States is given a sacred trust. Before he puts one American Soldier in harms way he should at least have the stones to tell the truth. If he wanted to get of Saddam because of the reasons you cite then he should not have lied to the American People. And why can't you and GW agree on the reason we went there in the first place. Tell you what, you guys come up the reason and when you can agree then we can argue about it.

some liberals have to be reminded over and over again :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:


---"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,493
256
83
Victory Lane
I for one am glad that Saddam spent another birthday in his
hell hole prison.

Hope to see him executed.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Funny thing Freeze but if yoiu believe so much in what those guys say why don't you quote them sometime when it comes to taxes. I couldn't care less what they say about anything. As you know, like Bush, they were all wrong on this one too. The only difference is that they did not compromise the American Military. Heres one for you. "Mission accomplished."
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
StevieD said:
Funny thing Freeze but if yoiu believe so much in what those guys say why don't you quote them sometime when it comes to taxes. I couldn't care less what they say about anything. As you know, like Bush, they were all wrong on this one too. The only difference is that they did not compromise the American Military. Heres one for you. "Mission accomplished."

many of them voted on the same resolution we already discussed authorizing military action

you seem to fault Bush all the time as you have an unhealthy obsession with him for some reason. hey i dont like what they guy does all the time either but it seems like everyone else was on board when it was the politically expedient thing to do.

you also forget that when Bush declared mission accomplished he was directly referring to the end of the major offensive against Iraq

not sure why you get all hung up on these things maybe you need to go to some counseling so that your anger does not overwhelm you i dont know but you and your liberals like to distort things for some reason as you please

bitterness and resentment will eat you up man get outside and take a sunday stroll in the daffodils
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,661
256
83
52
Belly of the Beast
Freeze,

If you ever get the chance, read the entire texts of the speeches that the above quotes are being taken from. You'll see how "behind" the war they were and what their authorization to go to war meant. It's enlightening.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top