And Joey wonders why there is division in this country.

97silverlsc said:
The fact of the matter is that Shrubs Environmental and Energy bills have been shaped by industry, not by true concern for the well being of the environment or the energy consuming public.
I bet ya you don't even know what Shrubs Environmental and Energy Bills are! Because if you did, you wouldn't be criticizing them because they further America's self-reliance on all ebergy sources and also serves to promote clean air and waterways in a way the previous administration of Slick Willy never did. Once again, the left doesn't need proof to make an accusation. The accusation is sufficient if enough parrots start talking.
 
97silverlsc said:
EXCUSE ME, you are the one that needs to wake up. First of all, Shrub diverted funds from Afghanistan for his build up for Iraq(Some say illegally, still being investigated). Secondly, he did not finish the job in Afghanistan, the taliban and Al quida are on the upswing evidenced by the downing of that helicopter with 16-17 troops on board killed along with the missing seal team this past week.
He's turned Iraq into a terrorist training ground that rivals Afghanistan during the Aghan-Soviet war.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

First, no proof about illegally diverting funds, so your assertion is merely speculation.
Second, he hasn't stopped the job in Afghanistan, obviously, or we wouldn't have SEALS and helicopters there, duh!
Third, what terrorist training ground? You are making no sense whatsoever.
 
fossten said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

First, no proof about illegally diverting funds, so your assertion is merely speculation.


Critics question diversion of Afghan war funds to Iraq plan
Richard Simon, Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times

Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Washington -- Charges that the Bush administration had diverted $700 million to prepare for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without informing Congress drew criticism Monday from congressional Democrats, while Republicans contended that Congress had given the administration "unprecedented flexibility" in spending after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the administration "owes Congress a full, detailed and immediate accounting."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, called for an investigation, calling it "deeply irresponsible of the White House to secretly reprogram funds allocated by Congress."

The staffs of Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees scrambled over records to determine whether the administration had shifted money that had been allocated for the war in Afghanistan, whether it was required to notify Congress and, if so, whether it had done so.

A new book by Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, says that in the summer of 2002, the Bush administration diverted money allocated for the war in Afghanistan for "preparatory tasks" in the Persian Gulf region, such as upgrading airfields in Kuwait.

"Congress, which is supposed to control the purse strings, had no real knowledge or involvement, had not even been notified the Pentagon wanted to reprogram money," Woodward wrote in "Plan of Attack."

"It is our understanding that Congress was kept informed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Monday, adding that the White House had asked the Pentagon comptroller and the Office of Management and Budget to document what had happened. Emergency spending legislation passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks gave the administration "broad discretion" in the use of funding, he said.

White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said in an interview Monday that the "significant buildup" at the time in the Persian Gulf region was not necessarily in preparation for an invasion. He said the administration wanted to be ready to aid weapons inspectors or pave the way for a quick response if Saddam Hussein fled.

Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said that Congress in most cases had allowed the Defense Department to allocate post-Sept. 11 funding with "unprecedented flexibility because of the dynamic combat environment and an unconventional terrorist threat."

Congressional Democrats said they planned to ask Defense Department officials for an explanation during hearings this week on Bush's Iraq policy. The controversy has emerged as continuing insurgency and U.S. military deaths in Iraq have presented Bush with new challenges to holding onto public support for the war as he seeks re-election in November.
fossten said:
Second, he hasn't stopped the job in Afghanistan, obviously, or we wouldn't have SEALS and helicopters there, duh!
I am referring to the fact that Shrub pulled troops and resources from Afghanistan before the job was finished, I didn't say he pulled all the troops. The Taliban and Al Quaida are on the upswing, and what happened to "Osama, wanted dead or alive". Shrub turned around and said that he wasn't concerned about Osama during the run up to the election last year, yet that sucker is still out there organizing his terrorists.
fossten said:
Third, what terrorist training ground? You are making no sense whatsoever.
CIA says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground

By Reuters

06/22/05 - - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday.

A classified report from the U.S. spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, officials said.

Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.

Fighters leaving Iraq would primarily pose a challenge for their countries of origin including Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

But the May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.

"You have people coming to the action with anti-U.S. sentiment ... And since they're Iraqi or foreign Arabs or to some degree Kurds, they have more communities they can blend into outside Iraq," said a U.S. counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the report's classified status.

Canada also released an intelligence report saying the Sunni insurgency in Iraq posed a global problem given that most of the world's Sunni Muslims live outside the Middle East.

"The current war in Iraq is creating a whole new set of extremists," the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said in a briefing document obtained by Reuters.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon official said the CIA report appeared to be a synthesis of intelligence information already known to military commanders in the Gulf region.

Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s, U.S. officials say.

Bin Laden won prominence as a U.S. ally in the war against Soviet troops in Afghanistan. He later used Afghanistan as the training center for his al Qaeda network, which is blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on Washington and New York.

President Bush justified the invasion of Iraq in part by charging that Saddam Hussein was supporting al Qaeda. A U.S. inquiry later found no collaboration between prewar Iraq and the bin Laden network.

But since the invasion, Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has emerged as a key insurgent figure and pledged his allegiance to bin Laden.

While the Afghan war against the Soviets was largely fought on a rural battlefield, the CIA report said Iraq is providing extremists with more comprehensive skills including training in operations devised for populated urban areas.

"You have everything from bombings and assassinations to more or less conventional attacks," the counterterrorism official said.

"The urban warfare experience, for people facing fairly tight police and military activity at close quarters, should enable them to operate in a wider range of settings."

Vice President Dick Cheney has argued that the insurgency is in its last throes, despite reports that the guerrillas have grown more deadly.

CIA Director Porter Goss told Time magazine that the insurgency was not quite in its last throes, "but I think they are very close to it."


"Duh" ? Stop quoting Shrubs favorite line, you sound like his parrot.
I can see that you and Bryan are both wearing the Shrub colored glasses, you obviously get your news from Fox and Rush, ignoring all other sources.
 
I knew I smelled Rush in all their arguements. I think all those pain killers got to him and rotted his brain.
 
Funny, I have listened to less than 2 hours of Rush and have yet to turn on Fox since the election. I dance :dancefoolto the tune of my own drummer, thank you.


I love the fact that 97silverlsc almost always posts up the drivel that comes from the left. Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times. Talk about parroting via cut and paste. Good humor.

Even funnier was the call I got 2 days ago from the New York Times. They wanted to sell me a subscription and just couldn't quite understand why I wouldn't waste my money on the toilet paper they call a newspaper. Even had to have some heavy-weight pick up the phone to try and tongue-lash me. Told me all about the size of the op-ed department versus the 'news' department (news has 10 times more employees) and that both groups were run separately and this and that.

In the end, I told them to call me back when they sell off the 'editorial' department because those morons were killing their subscriber base. I almost felt sorry for the 'news' guys. They seemed pretty sincere. If I didn't know better, I would say that these poor 'news' guys hated the 'opinion' guys and know they are losing their jobs because of those morons.

We'll have to wait and see. The NYT did say they were going to change and reach out to the rest of the US citizenship, not just the 3% represented by some on this board comprising the far left. Heck, they must have pulled me off of a right-wing wacko mailing list and are trying their best to become my buddy. Sad but funny.

No doubt liberalism is dying. When they have to reach out to dip into my pocket, something is certainly amiss.
 
Again, you offer no proof, just claims and speculation. And you claimed that Bush "turned Iraq into a terrorist training ground..." I'm sure he isn't behind the terrorists' training. Pretty sure Al Qaeda is.

It's classic how you offer newspaper articles as "proof". Definitely Rush and Fox News are better sources than "Doonesbury", which is obviously where you get all your info.
 
fossten said:
Again, you offer no proof, just claims and speculation. And you claimed that Bush "turned Iraq into a terrorist training ground..." I'm sure he isn't behind the terrorists' training. Pretty sure Al Qaeda is.

It's classic how you offer newspaper articles as "proof". Definitely Rush and Fox News are better sources than "Doonesbury", which is obviously where you get all your info.

There are numerous articles from numerous sources that back up what I've said. You and Bryan are both childlike in your arguments, "it can't be true cause it's something bad about the guy i like". If you would admit that your boy makes mistakes it would be one thing, but with those Shrub colored glasses on you won't admit your boy isn't perfect. Anybody who has anything bad to say about Shrub or his administration is a Liberal. You've both been drinking too much of that Repug red Koolaid.

Bryan, you should do some reading at this site, http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/
Then tell me how great Shrubs record is on the environment.

:N
 
97silverlsc said:
Then tell me how great Shrubs record is on the environment.
Thanks for the link. I'll spend some time looking it over.

Can't help but noticed this 'group' doesn't seem to have a problem with the Clinton administration. Putting up a group like this is pretty laughable. I mean come on. A far left wing group. Tree Huggers. Save the Planet. Geesh. I wish you could come up with a group more in the middle. Hard to take these guys seriously, seriously.
icon12.gif


And as far as Bush's wrong-doing goes, please post what you feel Bush has done wrong and I will answer it. I don't see a reason, any reason for Bush to apologize for ANYTHING that he has done. Seriously. I don't.

And quit trying to use the Koolaid thing. That is a repub weapon. We used the term 1st. Don't copycat. Try something original for a change.

Back to Bush, really, show my why we should apologize for anything. I sure there is something there, I just don't see it. Must be those glasses.
icon10.gif


Without Bush in office, this country would be in a world of hurt. imho.
 
MonsterMark said:
Thanks for the link. I'll spend some time looking it over.

Can't help but noticed this 'group' doesn't seem to have a problem with the Clinton administration. Putting up a group like this is pretty laughable. I mean come on. A far left wing group. Tree Huggers. Save the Planet. Geesh. I wish you could come up with a group more in the middle. Hard to take these guys seriously, seriously.
icon12.gif


And as far as Bush's wrong-doing goes, please post what you feel Bush has done wrong and I will answer it. I don't see a reason, any reason for Bush to apologize for ANYTHING that he has done. Seriously. I don't.

And quit trying to use the Koolaid thing. That is a repub weapon. We used the term 1st. Don't copycat. Try something original for a change.

Back to Bush, really, show my why we should apologize for anything. I sure there is something there, I just don't see it. Must be those glasses.
icon10.gif


Without Bush in office, this country would be in a world of hurt. imho.

Just read some of the articles.
Correction-With Shrub in office, this country IS in a world of hurt.
 
Did anyone notice that Bryan always deflects criticism of BuSh by bringing up Clinton? I sure have. Maybe we should look back another 4 years to the idiot's father's failures like Iraq and "No new taxes". It's laughable how you guys do this repeatedly.
 
barry2952 said:
Did anyone notice that Bryan always deflects criticism of BuSh by bringing up Clinton? I sure have. Maybe we should look back another 4 years to the idiot's father's failures like Iraq and "No new taxes". It's laughable how you guys do this repeatedly.

I've said it before, and I repeat: The only thing I am disappointed about with Bush is that he hasn't fought the liberals and their agenda more vigorously. Other than that, he's done a great job of meeting my expectations.

You people act like he's running for reelection again and you've just got to stop him. Newsflash: It's over! You lost!

What you ought to be doing is trying to find a candidate who will actually be electable in 2008 (not Hillary) and a platform that actually stands for something (not current platform). Then you might have a chance. At this rate, your Howard Deans and Harry Reids are going to turn off all the American people and your power in Congress and the Presidency will continue to shrink. But hey, keep it up. It's working so far...for us.
 
fossten said:
I've said it before, and I repeat: The only thing I am disappointed about with Bush is that he hasn't fought the liberals and their agenda more vigorously. Other than that, he's done a great job of meeting my expectations.

You people act like he's running for reelection again and you've just got to stop him. Newsflash: It's over! You lost!

What you ought to be doing is trying to find a candidate who will actually be electable in 2008 (not Hillary) and a platform that actually stands for something (not current platform). Then you might have a chance. At this rate, your Howard Deans and Harry Reids are going to turn off all the American people and your power in Congress and the Presidency will continue to shrink. But hey, keep it up. It's working so far...for us.

Wrong again! The issue here is not whether he's running for reelection or not, We know he won. As James Baldwin said, and I quote "I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually." It doesn't matter whether I voted for the person in office or not, if I think he's wrong I will speak out. I am not affiliated with any party, another words I'm not a dem or repug. This guy is wrong in so many different ways.
 
97silverlsc said:
Correction-With Shrub in office, this country IS in a world of hurt.

:I (highlighted for emphasis)

GW has sold out the US. He sacraficed our OWN security and sanctity of "the American Way of Life" in the name of "world peace and democracy". The fact it made his corporate puppeteers rich in the process does not bother him (or any other Shrubbies for that matter) one bit.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
He sacraficed our OWN security and sanctity of "the American Way of Life" in the name of "world peace and democracy".

Caution...Bryan's head is exploding. Need more duct tape...

What did we do to provoke the 9/11 attack? Weren't we appeasing Saddam at the time? Did we have troops in Afganistan hunting for Osama? I thought we were pretty much minding our own business.

Somebody needs to clue you in. THEY STARTED IT. We're gonna finish it. That's the way it goes. We have turned the other cheek countless times. It doesn't work. Our enemy only understands one thing. Kill or be killed. No turning back. Sorry.
 
You guys sound like pacifists. Are you two pacifists? (Johnny and Silverlsc)
 
fossten said:
You guys sound like pacifists. Are you two pacifists? (Johnny and Silverlsc)

You guys sound like warmongers. Are you two warmongers? (MonsterMark ans fossten)
 
Saddam didn't start this action. GWB's father failed to end the last one. Blame that on the Liberals.

Bryan,

Please get off the notion that invading Iraq had anything at all to do with 9/11. You've admitted that it was all about oil. Try to be consistant.
 
barry2952 said:
You guys sound like warmongers. Are you two warmongers? (MonsterMark ans fossten)

I consider myself a patriot. I have served in the Armed Forces. I am a big fan of our country defending itself against attack. War has been ever present in our country's history since other entities continually assault our way of life. Democratic presidents as well as republican presidents have taken our country to war whenever we were attacked. Roosevelt, Truman, LBJ, the list goes on.

The only warmongers I see are the terrorists who are continuing to attack us, now in Iraq. The war is the same, the front has changed. Kind of like Japan and Germany in WWII, but this is a war unlike any other we have ever fought. It is against cowards who will not stand up and fight face to face, but instead prey on our innocent civilians.

You complain that this war has been bungled. You libs cry about losing 1,700 soldiers in two years. In WWII the Battle of the Bulge alone claimed over 81,000 American lives in just over a MONTH. What should we have done? Given up and gone home just because it was costing us something?

You pacifists think that just reasoning with the terrorists will somehow appease them, while you are ignorant of their ideals, how they are sworn to destroy us. You fail to understand that this type of enemy doesn't surrender, doesn't negotiate, and doesn't show mercy. The ONLY thing terrorists understand is force. The only way to end this war is to DEFEAT them, not to run away.

And you would have our country abandon the poor Iraqis just when they are starting to get on their feet. These guys need us for a while. Your own beloved Hillary even said (however duplicitously) that she thinks we should stay over in Iraq for a while longer.

You parrot the media and the Michael Moores who cry foul while never contributing a single thing positive to society.

You will no doubt try to pick apart my words and criticize me somehow. But I represent a far larger majority of Americans in these particular ideals than you do, because I actually believe in something, while you and your lib friends' only platform is to tear down, criticize, bash, and act as elitists. You will not win elections that way. You stand for nothing, you are against everything. Your time of fooling the American people is a thing of the past. Your time of power and influence in government is over. It doesn't matter how loudly you scream, the louder you get the more you turn people off. Keep up the good work; you're really doing us a favor.
 
Fossten,

I disagree with your last statment. The louder we are the lower the President's numbers go.

You see, I spell President with a capital "P" because I respect the office. I don't however, respect the man. GWB has sold us a pack of lies that he will pay dearly for. He will be held accountable for fixing the facts about Iraq and their ability to deliver WMD.
 
barry2952 said:
Saddam didn't start this action. GWB's father failed to end the last one. Blame that on the Liberals.

Bryan,

Please get off the notion that invading Iraq had anything at all to do with 9/11. You've admitted that it was all about oil. Try to be consistant.
Saddam didn't play by the rules. I would consider that starting something, wouldn't you?

Sr. Bush listened to the doves who said Saddam would abide by the rules of the cease-fire. Sr. was wrong. So why should GWB believe anything that Saddam would say or say he was going to do. I don't think I need to list all the sanctions he violated, do I?

GWB wouldn't have had the grounds for going into Iraq based solely on the terrorist element. Why don't you guys understand that? We went in to finish what we started AFTER Saddam violated the peace accord. That is why we went in. That is what was voted on in the UN. How come you can't figure that out? It is the left that is mixing the 2 together. The fact that Saddam was harboring terrorists was just a bonus. And yes, in the end, this is all about oil. A peaceful middle-east means more oil for everyone.

We have not seen the tip of the iceberg yet when it comes to oil problems. China is already making moves in the Caspian Sea area, convincing the surrounding countries to toss us out. If they get control of that oil, we are in deep doodoo.

I need to finish building my ark so I can sail my family to Australia when the crap hits the fan. China is gonna run right over us in 15 years unless we have someone with balls like Bush in the Oval Office.
 
barry2952 said:
He will be held accountable for fixing the facts about Iraq and their ability to deliver WMD.
Sorry Barry, but you can't impeach a whole Country. If Bush is guilty, we all are guilty.
 
Saddam was just a limp dick tyrant. He wasn't going anywhere. He was contained. He hadn't invaded anyone in quite a while. He was simply made an example of so GWB could start his cockfight with the Koreans.

I say finish the job as soon as possible and bring the soldiers home to protect our borders. What would 140,000 guard towers do for our porous borders? The Iraqi people don't want us there anyway.

Let me ask you Bryan. If there was a band of criminals operating in your neighborhood wouldn't you be the first to organize a "clensing" of the problem? Where are the Iraqi people in all this? Why haven't they risen against their tormentors?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top