| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Snubis" |
| Date: |
23 Feb 2004 08:54:10 PM |
| Object: |
Bush is winning war that matters now |
Bush is winning war that matters now
Chicago Sun-Times, February 22, 2004
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn22.html
How goes the war? No, not Vietnam. The other one. You remember. It was in
all the papers until a month ago when Vietnam returned for a Democratic
Party dinner-theater tour starring Massachusetts' answer to Robert Goulet.
Can't get into it myself. I dozed off the other day watching a White House
press conference in which President Bush was asked nary a question about
anything that had happened since 1972, and I dreamt there was a muffled
explosion from al-Qaida down the street blowing up the Capitol. And, when
it had died away, the press corps brushed the plaster dust off their suits
and said, ''But, Mr. President, critics point out that National Guard pay
stubs from the '70s are notoriously easy to forge.''
It's been said that America is divided into Sept. 11 people and Sept. 10
people. The former category are those for whom Sept. 11, 2001, changed
everything. The latter are those for whom Sept. 10, 1972, changed
everything. That's when Bush didn't show up at the Air National Guard base
because he was dancing naked on a bar in Acapulco with Conchita the surly
waitress. Or whatever. If you think this is the most important issue facing
America, feel free to vote for John Kerry, who back in 1972 was proudly
serving his country by accusing its armed services of committing war
crimes. Or whatever. Like I said, I can't get my head round the whole retro
this-is-the-aging-of-the-dawn-of-Aquarius scene.
Meanwhile, there's this whole other war going on, the one Bush has to
attend to while everyone else is on cable TV talking about the early '70s.
This war has an ambitious aim: the transformation of the most dysfunctional
region of the world. You can't do it overnight. But, 10 months after the
liberation, it should be possible to discern a trend, and right now all the
Middle Eastern dominoes are beginning to teeter in the same direction.
Last year, about a month after the war, I was heading back through Iraq's
western desert to Amman, came to Jordan Junction just past Rutba and
decided to take a swing up the road to the Syrian border. A weird sight: On
one side, the frontier guards of the last surviving Baathist regime; on the
other, American troops. It must have looked a lot weirder from the Syrian
side, if you're suddenly spending your entire shift a few hundred yards
from U.S. soldiers, relaxed and chewing the proverbial gum. It seems to
have concentrated the mind of Bashir Assad, Syria's boy dictator. He has no
desire to wind up looking like Saddam Hussein when they fished him out of
that hole. So the other day the country's vice president, Abdul Halim
Khaddam, said his government had sent messages to Israel via Turkey
offering to resume peace talks with the Zionist entity.
Might be serious. Might be just a meaningless gesture. But the fact that
Syria feels the need to be seen to be making a meaningless gesture is
itself something. What's happening is that most countries in the region are
moving toward the American position; the only variable is the speed. Col.
Gaddafi decided to throw in the towel completely. This time last year he
was still beavering away on his Weapons of Mass Destruction program. Did
you know he had one? The International Atomic Energy Agency -- the body
John Kerry and the Democrats place so much faith in -- were blissfully
unaware. But he's now opened it up to British and American inspectors, and,
in turn, we now know a lot more about his nuclear allies in North Korea,
Iran and Pakistan.
Even in that last ramshackle state, where Gen. Musharraf recently pardoned
A Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, for his various free-lance
forays into pan-Islamic nuke sharing, the Bush approach has managed to
flush Khan into the open: He'll never be able to retreat into the shadows
again.
In Europe, the war caused Tony Blair some political difficulties, but
they're as nothing compared to those of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard
Schroeder. The French press reacted to the Gaddafi cave-in by descending
into a slough of gloomy self-contemplation about whether their glorious
republic was entirely irrelevant. The Germans are desperately trying to
rebuild their burned bridges to Britain and America, or, indeed, anyone
other than Chirac.
Meanwhile, the U.N.'s much vaunted ''Oil for Food'' program has been
revealed to be a corrupt racket, and there are calls for more financial
accountability at the NGOs, the permanent floating crap game of Western do-
gooderism that in far too many places does far less good than it ought to,
given the dough it sluices up.
In other words, the ''coalition of the willing'' has effected more positive
change in the last 10 months than the multilateral establishment has in the
last 10 years. If Bush loses in November because he can't provide
sufficient witnesses to prove where he was on certain weekends in 1972,
he'll still have an impressive legacy: He's toppled two dictatorships,
neutered a third, and put the squeeze on several more. Yes, Americans are
still being killed by Islamists in Iraq. But they're not being killed by
Islamists in New York offices, or Washington government buildings, or U.S.
embassies and ships.
Assume for the purposes of argument that the media are right: that John
Kerry's four months in Vietnam are so impressive they outweigh two decades
of zero accomplishment in Washington, save for a series of votes remarkable
for being wrong on every major issue, from Reagan's raid on Libya to the
Gulf War to every new weapons systems for the U.S. military. What will
President Kerry do?
This is how he characterized the war on terror to Tom Brokaw: ''I think
there has been an exaggeration,'' he said. ''They are really misleading all
of America, Tom, in a profound way. It's primarily an intelligence and law
enforcement operation.''
That's all I need to know.
Bush wants to take the war to the enemies, fight it on their turf. Kerry
wants to do it through ''law enforcement'': If the Empire State Building
gets blown up, he'll launch an investigation immediately. It's not enough.
Even if Bush was AWOL 30 years ago, on everything that matters John Kerry
is AWOL now.
--
€
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
24 Feb 2004 01:01:10 AM |
|
|
"Snubis" <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:c1eeci$1hrfqj$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
Bush is winning war that matters now
Chicago Sun-Times, February 22, 2004
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn22.html
How goes the war? No, not Vietnam. The other one. You remember. It was in
all the papers until a month ago when Vietnam returned for a Democratic
Party dinner-theater tour starring Massachusetts' answer to Robert Goulet.
Can't get into it myself. I dozed off the other day watching a White House
press conference in which President Bush was asked nary a question about
anything that had happened since 1972, and I dreamt there was a muffled
explosion from al-Qaida down the street blowing up the Capitol. And, when
it had died away, the press corps brushed the plaster dust off their suits
and said, ''But, Mr. President, critics point out that National Guard pay
stubs from the '70s are notoriously easy to forge.''
That's interesting. I fell asllep listening to all the lies and bellowed,
but empty, promises and propaganda Bush was shoveling!
It's been said that America is divided into Sept. 11 people and Sept. 10
people. The former category are those for whom Sept. 11, 2001, changed
everything. The latter are those for whom Sept. 10, 1972, changed
everything. That's when Bush didn't show up at the Air National Guard base
because he was dancing naked on a bar in Acapulco with Conchita the surly
waitress. Or whatever. If you think this is the most important issue
facing
America, feel free to vote for John Kerry, who back in 1972 was proudly
serving his country by accusing its armed services of committing war
crimes. Or whatever. Like I said, I can't get my head round the whole
retro
this-is-the-aging-of-the-dawn-of-Aquarius scene.
It's been said, and is being shown here, that republican propagandists will
distort anything and everything to pretend their party has ALL the right
answers and ALL the perfect solutions.
Were that true - they wouldn't need to lie like this!
Meanwhile, there's this whole other war going on, the one Bush has to
attend to while everyone else is on cable TV talking about the early '70s.
"Attended to"?
That's a mild way of putting an illegal invasion of another nation based on
Bush's lies and corruption!
This war has an ambitious aim:
To make Haliburton, and Bush's other corporate buddies, rich.
the transformation of the most dysfunctional
region of the world.
Right now - the White House in Washington D.C. is the most dysfunctional,
and sleazy area in the world!
You can't do it overnight. But, 10 months after the
liberation, it should be possible to discern a trend, and right now all
the
Middle Eastern dominoes are beginning to teeter in the same direction.
You cana't do it overnight - but in a few short years, George Bush has
managed to more damage to THIS democratic republic than the Russian did in
decades of the cold war!
(snip remaining bull ***** republican propaganda lies!)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley F. Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
23 Feb 2004 09:10:24 PM |
|
|
No -- Bush is not winning the "war" that matters now. Osama bin Laden is
still on the loose. Al Qaeda is still quite functional. Sadam Hussein had
no connection with the September 11 attack. He had no militarily useful
"weapons of mass destruction," if indeed he had any at all. He had never
re-built an effective military after Desert Storm. He was a bad guy who had
killed many people of tribes and clans in the area called Iraq. But he was
not a threat to the United States of America. The Middle East has been
unstable and filled with killing for about 4,000 years. Our military
intervention in that region has changed nothing except prolong the agony for
Israel. Our enemy in the "War on Terror" is Osama bin Laden and his
worldwide operation Al Qaeda. Winning that war will take us a long time,
much patience, and mostly covert operations. This is not a war Bush and his
people can win.
Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
23 Feb 2004 09:24:55 PM |
|
|
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
25 Feb 2004 09:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
George W.Bush (a murdering psychopath un elected pRestident) who lied
about why we went to war, and is an unelected drunk who should be in
jail. Hitler was elected, but Bush was appointed by the United States
Supreme Court. Republicans want to starve kids, kick old people out on
the street, make poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison
the air, land and water and kill millions of American kids with your
imperialist wars.
Because, on issue after issue, George W. Bush has amassed a record
that's tough to defend.
Millions of voters all across America will go to the polls and voice
their protest against Bush's economic policies
George W. Bush's reckless disregard for fiscal responsibility has led
to a $521 billion deficit in FY 2004, and American families are
shouldering the burden.
Shalom,
---Prof. Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D. ®
Reverend Chancellor Leland Milton Goldblatt Ph.D. ED.D. M.F.A, D.Div.
M.Theo .
Copyright © 2004
http://www.prof.faithweb.com
http://drgoldblatt.blogspot.com/
http://www.voxfux.com
http://www.bushflash.com/nazi.html
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/
(773) 731-1100
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
25 Feb 2004 09:46:07 PM |
|
|
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
It is amazing how a president gets the blame or the credit.
If Bill Clinton was a Republican you would have been more focussed
on something negative.
If Bush was a Liberal Democrat, you would have been praising him.
Bottom line is, all this crap is phoney.
Bill Clinton had NO impact or anything to do with jobs.
The economy revolves around in a cycle.
Fact is, before Clinton LEFT office, we were headed into a recession.
Bush inherited that.
Now the economy is doing what the economy ALWAYS does.
It is turning back around for the better. It will again, turn downwards, as
it always does.
Economics 101
George W.Bush (a murdering psychopath un elected pRestident) who lied
about why we went to war, and is an unelected drunk who should be in
jail.
an unelected drunk?
ROFL
Clinton was a pot head, a fugitive who had to get a pardon from Jimmy
Carter.
A person who ran to another country, burned the U.S. flag and wrote a letter
saying he loathed the military.
Hitler was elected, but Bush was appointed by the United States
Supreme Court.
And in New Jersey, there senator was allowed to run despite the violation
of the Election laws.
Your point?
Republicans want to starve kids, kick old people out on
the street, make poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison
the air, land and water and kill millions of American kids with your
imperialist wars.
Oh stop, you are making me cry.
Because, on issue after issue, George W. Bush has amassed a record
that's tough to defend.
Millions of voters all across America will go to the polls and voice
their protest against Bush's economic policies
Is this another prediction?
Gee, it would be nice if one of you liberals get one right for a change.
For the past 15 years, your record on predictions has been pretty miserable.
George W. Bush's reckless disregard for fiscal responsibility has led
to a $521 billion deficit in FY 2004, and American families are
shouldering the burden.
Cry me a river
Shalom,
---Prof. Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D. ®
Reverend Chancellor Leland Milton Goldblatt Ph.D. ED.D. M.F.A, D.Div.
M.Theo .
Copyright © 2004
http://www.prof.faithweb.com
http://drgoldblatt.blogspot.com/
http://www.voxfux.com
http://www.bushflash.com/nazi.html
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/
(773) 731-1100
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 08:02:48 AM |
|
|
In article <A_mdnTBpMJHM9qDdRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Easy
http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/#jobs
It is amazing how a president gets the blame or the credit.
Stop making excuses for the bumbler Bush.
If Bill Clinton was a Republican you would have been more focussed
on something negative.
If Bush was a Liberal Democrat, you would have been praising him.
Best economy in US History, dipshit. Bush is the worst.
Bottom line is, all this crap is phoney.
Bottom line is you will make any excuse for Bush.
Bill Clinton had NO impact or anything to do with jobs.
Wrong
http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/#jobs
The economy revolves around in a cycle.
Yeah - the cycle of when Republicans or Democrats are president.
Fact is, before Clinton LEFT office, we were headed into a recession.
People knew he wouldnąt be president any longer - lost confidence.
Bush inherited that.
Bush CREATED it.
http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/#jobs
.
|
|
|
| User: "r_c_brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 05:37:49 PM |
|
|
David Barnes <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<260220040602483807%dbarnes111@yahoo.com>...
In article <A_mdnTBpMJHM9qDdRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Easy
http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/#jobs
It is amazing how a president gets the blame or the credit.
Stop making excuses for the bumbler Bush.
If Bill Clinton was a Republican you would have been more focussed
on something negative.
If Bush was a Liberal Democrat, you would have been praising him.
Best economy in US History, dipshit. Bush is the worst.
<snip>
It has been bad, to be sure, but *not* worse than the Great Depression.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 10:04:38 PM |
|
|
In article <bb730bf.0402261537.3a2fe06b@posting.google.com>, r_c_brown
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David Barnes <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<260220040602483807%dbarnes111@yahoo.com>...
In article <A_mdnTBpMJHM9qDdRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Easy
http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/#jobs
It is amazing how a president gets the blame or the credit.
Stop making excuses for the bumbler Bush.
If Bill Clinton was a Republican you would have been more focussed
on something negative.
If Bush was a Liberal Democrat, you would have been praising him.
Best economy in US History, dipshit. Bush is the worst.
<snip>
It has been bad, to be sure, but *not* worse than the Great Depression.
Maybe not. Iąve heard both arguments. But that isnąt really saying
much. (And for the record. Hoover was a Republican, too.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "r_c_brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
27 Feb 2004 04:13:20 PM |
|
|
David Barnes <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<260220042004389773%dbarnes111@yahoo.com>...
In article <bb730bf.0402261537.3a2fe06b@posting.google.com>, r_c_brown
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David Barnes <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<260220040602483807%dbarnes111@yahoo.com>...
In article <A_mdnTBpMJHM9qDdRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Easy
http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/#jobs
It is amazing how a president gets the blame or the credit.
Stop making excuses for the bumbler Bush.
If Bill Clinton was a Republican you would have been more focussed
on something negative.
If Bush was a Liberal Democrat, you would have been praising him.
Best economy in US History, dipshit. Bush is the worst.
<snip>
It has been bad, to be sure, but *not* worse than the Great Depression.
Maybe not. Iąve heard both arguments. But that isnąt really saying
much.
Agreed. It's not a record to aspire to. (In 1933, the unemployment rate was 25%!)
(And for the record. Hoover was a Republican, too.)
True enough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 12:16:45 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote in
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Bush is sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy
every year. That's how.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 08:06:29 AM |
|
|
In article <c1k30c$km6$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote in
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Bush is sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy
every year. That's how.
Greenspan seems to agree with you. And now, jobs are getting worse
(again).
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/26/news/economy/jobless/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraud Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 08:17:33 AM |
|
|
"David Barnes" <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:260220040606297048%dbarnes111@yahoo.com...
In article <c1k30c$km6$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote
in
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Bush is sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy
every year. That's how.
Greenspan seems to agree with you.
Nope, Greenspan said no such thing.
Feel free to quote Greenspan if you think he ever said such a thing
concerning President Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 08:26:09 AM |
|
|
"John Fraud Kerry" <JFK@DNC.com> wrote in message
news:1en%b.61744$Xp.307423@attbi_s54...
"David Barnes" <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:260220040606297048%dbarnes111@yahoo.com...
In article <c1k30c$km6$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote
in
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President
we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Bush is sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy
every year. That's how.
Greenspan seems to agree with you.
Nope, Greenspan said no such thing.
Feel free to quote Greenspan if you think he ever said such a thing
concerning President Bush.
They have to lie
He actually feels that the reason the recession began before Bill Clinton
left was because Americans lost confidence.
Oh boy did a lot of us get a laugh on that one.
These libs will make up anything.
Then he seems to think his buzz link..or what ever it is, proves Bill
Clinton had a impact on jobs and the economy.
It shows no such thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 04:28:54 PM |
|
|
In article <IsidnS3xguzInKPdRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"John Fraud Kerry" <JFK@DNC.com> wrote in message
news:1en%b.61744$Xp.307423@attbi_s54...
"David Barnes" <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:260220040606297048%dbarnes111@yahoo.com...
In article <c1k30c$km6$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" <lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com> wrote
in
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President
we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
the 1 million dollar question
Show us exactly how a president has ANY impact on jobs.
Bush is sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy
every year. That's how.
Greenspan seems to agree with you.
Nope, Greenspan said no such thing.
Feel free to quote Greenspan if you think he ever said such a thing
concerning President Bush.
No problem. Check out CNN.
They have to lie
Look at Osprey talking to me through others again. LOL!
He actually feels that the reason the recession began before Bill Clinton
left was because Americans lost confidence.
Studies prove this is true. Funny you didnąt mention it to me directly
if you doubted it - COWARD.
Oh boy did a lot of us get a laugh on that one.
These libs will make up anything.
Studies have shown this to be true.
Then he seems to think his buzz link..or what ever it is, proves Bill
Clinton had a impact on jobs and the economy.
It shows no such thing.
<Yawn> Funny the coward didnąt mention it to me directly again - COWARD.
So you apparently believe it is a coincidence that the economy tanks
under Republicans and improves under Democrats. Idiot.
However, I donąt blame you from running from these official government
numbers. I guess the Fox łNews˛ lies better support your wishful
thinking.
http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "r_c_brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 11:45:43 AM |
|
|
(Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD) wrote in message news:<e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com>...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
George W.Bush (a murdering psychopath un elected pRestident) who lied
about why we went to war, and is an unelected drunk who should be in
jail. Hitler was elected, but Bush was appointed by the United States
Supreme Court. Republicans want to starve kids, kick old people out on
the street, make poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison
the air, land and water and kill millions of American kids with your
imperialist wars.
Yeah, and those lousy Republicans boil kittens for breakfast.
Hyperbole is not your best weapon. Really.
Because, on issue after issue, George W. Bush has amassed a record
that's tough to defend.
Millions of voters all across America will go to the polls and voice
their protest against Bush's economic policies
George W. Bush's reckless disregard for fiscal responsibility has led
to a $521 billion deficit in FY 2004, and American families are
shouldering the burden.
Shalom,
---Prof. Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D. ®
Reverend Chancellor Leland Milton Goldblatt Ph.D. ED.D. M.F.A, D.Div.
M.Theo .
Copyright © 2004
http://www.prof.faithweb.com
http://drgoldblatt.blogspot.com/
http://www.voxfux.com
http://www.bushflash.com/nazi.html
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/
(773) 731-1100
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
25 Feb 2004 10:33:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed 25 Feb 2004 10:35:16p, (Leland
Milton Goldblatt PhD) wrote in
news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com:
George W.Bush (a murdering psychopath un elected pRestident) who lied
about why we went to war, and is an unelected drunk who should be in
jail. Hitler was elected, but Bush was appointed by the United States
Supreme Court.
Bush was elected and only the infantile disagree.
Republicans want to starve kids, kick old people out on the street, make
poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison the air, land and
water and kill millions of American kids with your imperialist wars.
You are a complete moron.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
25 Feb 2004 11:46:12 PM |
|
|
"Snubis" <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:60adbb8993552d54c5bdba20ea8380c2@news.teranews.com...
On Wed 25 Feb 2004 10:35:16p, (Leland
Milton Goldblatt PhD) wrote in
news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com:
George W.Bush (a murdering psychopath un elected pRestident) who lied
about why we went to war, and is an unelected drunk who should be in
jail. Hitler was elected, but Bush was appointed by the United States
Supreme Court.
Bush was elected and only the infantile disagree.
And this time if Bush is re-elected which I think he will be...what will
their excuse be then?
Especially if it is a landslide, which it could very well be.
Republicans want to starve kids, kick old people out on the street, make
poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison the air, land and
water and kill millions of American kids with your imperialist wars.
You are a complete moron.
They rely on scare tactics
--
?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 12:18:04 AM |
|
|
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com (Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD) wrote in
George W.Bush (a murdering psychopath un elected pRestident) who lied
about why we went to war, and is an unelected drunk who should be in
jail. Hitler was elected, but Bush was appointed by the United States
Supreme Court.
Bush was elected and only the infantile disagree.
5 votes to 4.
Republicans want to starve kids, kick old people out on the street, make
poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison the air, land and
water and kill millions of American kids with your imperialist wars.
You are a complete moron.
But at least he doesn't want to starve kids, kick old people out on
the street, makepoor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison
the air, land and water and kill millions of American kids in
imperialist wars.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
26 Feb 2004 06:42:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu 26 Feb 2004 01:18:04a, (Ray Fischer) wrote
in news:c1k32s$kth$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> wrote:
lelandmiltongoldblatt@yahoo.com (Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD) wrote in
George W.Bush (a murdering psychopath un elected pRestident) who lied
about why we went to war, and is an unelected drunk who should be in
jail. Hitler was elected, but Bush was appointed by the United States
Supreme Court.
Bush was elected and only the infantile disagree.
5 votes to 4.
Thanks for proving my point.
--
€
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
25 Feb 2004 10:34:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed 25 Feb 2004 10:35:16p, (Leland
Milton Goldblatt PhD) wrote in
news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com:
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
He also drove this country into a recession in the months before he left
office.
--
€
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
25 Feb 2004 11:46:37 PM |
|
|
"Snubis" <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:9ec62e5c2cc0efe391db8be718613480@news.teranews.com...
On Wed 25 Feb 2004 10:35:16p, (Leland
Milton Goldblatt PhD) wrote in
news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com:
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
He also drove this country into a recession in the months before he left
office.
Oh, they leave out that little part.
--
?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
25 Feb 2004 11:52:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:46:37 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Snubis" <snubis@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:9ec62e5c2cc0efe391db8be718613480@news.teranews.com...
On Wed 25 Feb 2004 10:35:16p, (Leland
Milton Goldblatt PhD) wrote in
news:e87f6743.0402251935.21e6482c@posting.google.com:
Just wish we had Bill Clinton as President. When he was President we
had jobs and more people working peoples investment portfolio doing
better and foreign policy was successful and never over zealous!
He also drove this country into a recession in the months before he left
office.
Oh, they leave out that little part.
Whatever happened to your fervent conviction that the president
doesn't affect the economy, Bobby? Forgotten as long as you get to
blame Clinton for something?
---
"A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn \Me\ Hearn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
24 Feb 2004 06:06:42 AM |
|
|
In article <bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Really? So where are the WMD that Bush assured us that Saddam not
only had, but was poised to use them against us? Where is bin Laden
and how come the al Qeada is still alive and functional? How has
Saddam's capture improved our chances of avoiding being attacked
by another terrorist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
24 Feb 2004 07:25:07 AM |
|
|
"Shawn "Me" Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6011CA.07064224022004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Really? So where are the WMD that Bush assured us that Saddam not
only had, but was poised to use them against us?
I don't know. Can you say with 100% certainty he didn't have them?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they were not hidden or possible sold
to terrorist?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they are not in another country?
If you can say yes to any of those questions with 100% certainty,
Then you can explain the missing WMD that were never proven to have been
destroyed.
Where is bin Laden
and how come the al Qeada is still alive and functional?
Are you saying that if someone else was President that Bin Laden would have
been found by now?
How has
Saddam's capture improved our chances of avoiding being attacked
by another terrorist?
You figure it out. Read his history. Read about his sponsoring terrorist.
Read about his all ready using gasses.
If you think that by not getting rid of Saddam has helped us and other
countries down the road, you are truly mislead.
Many people believed we were invincible and terrorist couldn't touch us.
They doubted all the warnings about
countries that wanted to see harm to the U.S., those same people were
silenced 9/11
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn \Me\ Hearn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
24 Feb 2004 06:55:13 PM |
|
|
In article <tKWdnRaEIp540qbdRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Shawn "Me" Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6011CA.07064224022004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Really? So where are the WMD that Bush assured us that Saddam not
only had, but was poised to use them against us?
I don't know. Can you say with 100% certainty he didn't have them?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they were not hidden or possible sold
to terrorist?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they are not in another country?
If you can say yes to any of those questions with 100% certainty,
Then you can explain the missing WMD that were never proven to have been
destroyed.
Where is bin Laden
and how come the al Qeada is still alive and functional?
Are you saying that if someone else was President that Bin Laden would have
been found by now?
No, but there is a strong possibility that if someone else was President,
that bin Laden would have been captured before the 9/11 attacks began.
After all, bin Laden has been on the FBI's ten most wanted list all of
Bush's presidency and his fellow Republicans in congress failed to fund
any effort to take out bin Laden, as Clinton had originally proposed.
You figure it out. Read his history. Read about his sponsoring terrorist.
Read about his all ready using gasses.
Give me some examples.
If you think that by not getting rid of Saddam has helped us and other
countries down the road, you are truly mislead.
So why did the CIA just today, release a news bulletin that said that
we are still at great risk of another 9/11 style attack by al Qeada?
Many people believed we were invincible and terrorist couldn't touch us.
They doubted all the warnings about
countries that wanted to see harm to the U.S., those same people were
silenced 9/11
That still does not answer my question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
24 Feb 2004 07:04:47 PM |
|
|
"Shawn "Me" Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-DF9494.19551324022004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <tKWdnRaEIp540qbdRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Shawn "Me" Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6011CA.07064224022004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Really? So where are the WMD that Bush assured us that Saddam not
only had, but was poised to use them against us?
I don't know. Can you say with 100% certainty he didn't have them?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they were not hidden or possible
sold
to terrorist?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they are not in another country?
If you can say yes to any of those questions with 100% certainty,
Then you can explain the missing WMD that were never proven to have been
destroyed.
Where is bin Laden
and how come the al Qeada is still alive and functional?
Are you saying that if someone else was President that Bin Laden would
have
been found by now?
No, but there is a strong possibility that if someone else was President,
that bin Laden would have been captured before the 9/11 attacks began.
Really?
Well Clinton didn't capture him even after he had the opportunity.
After all, bin Laden has been on the FBI's ten most wanted list all of
Bush's presidency and his fellow Republicans in congress failed to fund
any effort to take out bin Laden, as Clinton had originally proposed.
Then whey did the Clinton administration call off a plan to capture Bin
Laden?
You figure it out. Read his history. Read about his sponsoring
terrorist.
Read about his all ready using gasses.
Give me some examples.
He gassed his own people.
He has sponsored suicide bombers in their attacks in Israel
If you think that by not getting rid of Saddam has helped us and other
countries down the road, you are truly mislead.
So why did the CIA just today, release a news bulletin that said that
we are still at great risk of another 9/11 style attack by al Qeada?
We are going to be at great risk for a long time, regardless of whether Bush
is in office or not.
Bush said this before, this is going to be a long fight. In other words,
years, not months.
Many people believed we were invincible and terrorist couldn't touch us.
They doubted all the warnings about
countries that wanted to see harm to the U.S., those same people were
silenced 9/11
That still does not answer my question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
25 Feb 2004 12:01:39 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Shawn "Me" Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
Are you saying that if someone else was President that Bin Laden would have
been found by now?
No, but there is a strong possibility that if someone else was President,
that bin Laden would have been captured before the 9/11 attacks began.
Really?
Well Clinton didn't capture him even after he had the opportunity.
Are you _still_ trying to push that lie, Heishman? Give it up.
It's been discredited as sleazt right-wing propaganda.
After all, bin Laden has been on the FBI's ten most wanted list all of
Bush's presidency and his fellow Republicans in congress failed to fund
any effort to take out bin Laden, as Clinton had originally proposed.
Then whey did the Clinton administration call off a plan to capture Bin
Laden?
And why haven't they thrown you in prison as a suspected terrorist?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
24 Feb 2004 06:03:32 PM |
|
|
In article <tKWdnRaEIp540qbdRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Shawn "Me" Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6011CA.07064224022004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Really? So where are the WMD that Bush assured us that Saddam not
only had, but was poised to use them against us?
I don't know. Can you say with 100% certainty he didn't have them?
Why is that an issue?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they were not hidden or possible sold
to terrorist?
Again, why is that an issue? Are you suggesting that if someone might
have WMD we can attack?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they are not in another country?
LOL!
If you can say yes to any of those questions with 100% certainty,
Then you can explain the missing WMD that were never proven to have been
destroyed.
We can say the same for Canada and Mexico. Should we attack them?
Where is bin Laden
and how come the al Qeada is still alive and functional?
Are you saying that if someone else was President that Bin Laden would have
been found by now?
Probably. But he will be found soon. It is good for Bush. The fact
that it was good for the country meant nothing. Bush needs the votes,
now. So we will find him.
How has
Saddam's capture improved our chances of avoiding being attacked
by another terrorist?
You figure it out. Read his history. Read about his sponsoring terrorist.
We sponsor terrorism.
Read about his all ready using gasses.
That was Saddam at our request.
If you think that by not getting rid of Saddam has helped us and other
countries down the road, you are truly mislead.
Even the mideast leaders now say the US is a more dangerous place.
There used to be only Bin Laden, now there are many Bin Ladens. It is
due to Bush.
Many people believed we were invincible and terrorist couldn't touch us.
Not so. Bush did, though - apparently.
They doubted all the warnings about
countries that wanted to see harm to the U.S., those same people were
silenced 9/11
Far more countries hate us under Bush. We need a Democrat to make
peace again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
24 Feb 2004 06:30:09 PM |
|
|
"Elmo" <elmo3321@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:240220041606490464%elmo3321@yahoo.com...
In article <tKWdnRaEIp540qbdRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Shawn "Me" Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6011CA.07064224022004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Really? So where are the WMD that Bush assured us that Saddam not
only had, but was poised to use them against us?
I don't know. Can you say with 100% certainty he didn't have them?
Why is that an issue?
Can you say with 100% certainty he didn't have them?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they were not hidden or possible
sold
to terrorist?
Again, why is that an issue? Are you suggesting that if someone might
have WMD we can attack?
Can you say that with 100% certainty that they were not hidden or possibly
sold to terrorist?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they are not in another country?
LOL!
Can you say it with 100% certainty or not?
If you can say yes to any of those questions with 100% certainty,
Then you can explain the missing WMD that were never proven to have been
destroyed.
We can say the same for Canada and Mexico. Should we attack them?
So far you have just shown what I have all ready known about most liberals.
They don't know themselves if Saddam had them or not. They want to make this
big deal about WMD not being found,
but when asked if they can say with 100% certainty that he didn't have
them...not one liberal will say it.
Why?
Because they don't know.
You just proven that.
Where is bin Laden
and how come the al Qeada is still alive and functional?
Are you saying that if someone else was President that Bin Laden would
have
been found by now?
Probably.
Oh? How so?
But he will be found soon. It is good for Bush. The fact
that it was good for the country meant nothing. Bush needs the votes,
now. So we will find him.
Yea, right.
Yea, he will be found, but he doesn't need to find him for votes.
Boy have you got some issues.
How has
Saddam's capture improved our chances of avoiding being attacked
by another terrorist?
You figure it out. Read his history. Read about his sponsoring
terrorist.
We sponsor terrorism.
I think you would comfort and aid a terrorist.
Read about his all ready using gasses.
That was Saddam at our request.
ROFL
Boy are you really trying to stretch your insanity.
You are saying that Saddam gassed his own people at our request.
If you think that by not getting rid of Saddam has helped us and other
countries down the road, you are truly mislead.
Even the mideast leaders now say the US is a more dangerous place.
Like who? And give us the quotes too.
There used to be only Bin Laden, now there are many Bin Ladens. It is
due to Bush.
Many people believed we were invincible and terrorist couldn't touch us.
Not so. Bush did, though - apparently.
Really? Care to prove it. I have a lot of questions when you say you are
ready.
First though, you prove it.
They doubted all the warnings about
countries that wanted to see harm to the U.S., those same people were
silenced 9/11
Far more countries hate us under Bush. We need a Democrat to make
peace again.
The terrorist are counting on Bush getting out of office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is winning war that matters now |
24 Feb 2004 08:59:35 PM |
|
|
In article <rfCdnSWJE7bGcabdRVn-jw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Elmo" <elmo3321@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:240220041606490464%elmo3321@yahoo.com...
In article <tKWdnRaEIp540qbdRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Shawn "Me" Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6011CA.07064224022004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <bbqdnSTmMYS7Xqfd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan0809@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:103lg5086q8ao1b@corp.supernews.com...
No -- Bush
bzzz...bzzz..bzzz.....
These liberals are starting to sould like little bugs now....
Really? So where are the WMD that Bush assured us that Saddam not
only had, but was poised to use them against us?
I don't know. Can you say with 100% certainty he didn't have them?
Why is that an issue?
Can you say with 100% certainty he didn't have them?
Can you answer the question? I can't say for 100% certainty that you
don't have them. Is this your idea of an argument? No wonder you are
viewed as such a lunatic.
Can you say with 100% certainty that they were not hidden or possible
sold
to terrorist?
Again, why is that an issue? Are you suggesting that if someone might
have WMD we can attack?
Can you say that with 100% certainty that they were not hidden or possibly
sold to terrorist?
Nope. So what? Any point to that comment? Should we kill you, too?
Can you say with 100% certainty that they are not in another country?
LOL!
Can you say it with 100% certainty or not?
Nope - so what?
If you can say yes to any of those questions with 100% certainty,
Then you can explain the missing WMD that were never proven to have been
destroyed.
We can say the same for Canada and Mexico. Should we attack them?
So far you have just shown what I have all ready known about most liberals.
They don't know themselves if Saddam had them or not.
And you are the typical conservative. We can't say you aren't a child
molester, either. I guess this means you are.
They want to make this
big deal about WMD not being found,
but when asked if they can say with 100% certainty that he didn't have
them...not one liberal will say it.
We killed thousands and it not appears we were wrong. Bush sold that
war to us and he is a lyiny *****.
Why?
Because they don't know.
You just proven that.
As I have said. Of course we can't say for certain. That isn't the
standard we go to war by for anyone other than some one like you. Try
and imagine your children being murdered by Bin Laden and his defense
being "we thought the Americans might want to attack us. We weren't
100% certain they wouldn't."
Barnes is right. Thank God a piece of ***** like you is a conservative.
Where is bin Laden
and how come the al Qeada is still alive and functional?
Are you saying that if someone else was President that Bin Laden would
have
been found by now?
Probably.
Oh? How so?
Can you say 100% certain that he wouldn't have been?
But he will be found soon. It is good for Bush. The fact
that it was good for the country meant nothing. Bush needs the votes,
now. So we will find him.
Yea, right.
Yea - right.
Yea, he will be found, but he doesn't need to find him for votes.
What a coincidence. Right before the elections. Of course, only a
dumb ***** like you will accept that it wasn't staged. Think
how many died needlessly due to the Republican war machine meant to
keep our attention off of the economy and how Bush was selling our
children down the drain.
Boy have you got some issues.
You accept having your children support you, you scum bag. How do you
sleep at night? Your children will pay through the ***** so you can have
it easier today.
How has
Saddam's capture improved our chances of avoiding being attacked
by another terrorist?
You figure it out. Read his history. Read about his sponsoring
terrorist.
We sponsor terrorism.
I think you would comfort and aid a terrorist.
That wasn't what was said, was it? You are the one who aids terrorism.
Read about his all ready using gasses.
That was Saddam at our request.
ROFL
Boy are you really trying to stretch your insanity.
Proof: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
You are saying that Saddam gassed his own people at our request.
YEAH
If you think that by not getting rid of Saddam has helped us and other
countries down the road, you are truly mislead.
Even the mideast leaders now say the US is a more dangerous place.
Like who? And give us the quotes too.
There used to be only Bin Laden, now there are many Bin Ladens. It is
due to Bush.
Many people believed we were invincible and terrorist couldn't touch us.
Not so. Bush did, though - apparently.
Really? Care to prove it. I have a lot of questions when you say you are
ready.
First though, you prove it.
Are you 100% certain he didn't? I guess he did then.
They doubted all the warnings about
countries that wanted to see harm to the U.S., those same people were
silenced 9/11
Far more countries hate us under Bush. We need a Democrat to make
peace again.
The terrorist are counting on Bush getting out of office.
What an idiot. Live off your children, you vulture. Making Money on
Terrorism is a Republican venture.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040223&s=hartung
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Edwards Hurts Kerry Ticket, Bush Now Leads
If Bush Fought WWII. We All Be Speaking German Now
From Horse's ***** to HERO, *Overnight*?? President Bush HAS that opportunity, right now. IF he acts QUICKLY!
613th GI Killed By Bush's Big Lie. Where Are All You ***** AWOL Chickenhawk Neocaon Cowards Now?
599th GI Killed by Bush's Big Lie. Where Are All You ***** Chickenhawks Now?
Oops, OH CoinGate Scandal Now Tied to... Bush (GOP, The Party of Corruption)
Impeach Bush and Cheney Now, Before They Declare Martial Law
Senate Hearings on Bush, Now
| And Now The Latest On The Bush Economy
Dead GI #1234 Enjoyed Long Walks on the Beach, Playing With Daughter, But Is Now Killed by Bush's Big Lie. Mission Accomplished!
Columbus Free Press: Impeach Bush Now
How SUBVERSIVE is Bush? See "Now with Bill Moyers" TONIGHT on PBS!
20 Years From Now, Daivd Ford Will CLiam Bush Was An Atheist (GOP=Treason)
Now All of a Sudden Bush is "Anti-Leak" (GOP, The Party of Treason)
Bush Impeachment Now Spearheaded by... CONSERVATIVES (GOP==Treason)
|
|
|
