Contact these turncoats...

[Angel Of Mercy]

Who has been in power for the last six years? Who's had majorities in both the House and Senate for the last FOUR YEARS???

And you want to blame the Democrats?!? Don't be ridiculous...

[Angel Of Mercy]

You have produced ZERO evidence of ANYTHING! You can snarl and make all the ugly faces you want...but if you can't back it up with facts, then it doesn't mean a bloody thing...does it? If you've got some evidence from John Kerry or George Washington himself, then COUGH IT UP. I'm from Missouri. As for Kerry, he's not "my boy." He's a member of Skull & Bones, just like President Loser, and for that reason I don't trust EITHER of them. YOU'RE the one who seems so obsessed with him. Why is that, exactly?

As for our White House halfwit being AWOL, apparently the regulations in 1973 were somewhat more lax for Texas and/or Alabama Reservists...but there STILL exists a six-month period when he neither present nor accounted for. That's AWOL in my book, whether a regulation charge sheet exists for article 86 or not. And if you think he couldn't--or wouldn't--tamper with his own service records, then I've got a bridge I just know you'll be interested in.

YOU'RE the only one showing nasty disposition, spud; I refuse to descend to so infantile a level...

[jimnyc]

YOU'RE the only one showing nasty disposition, spud; I refuse to descend to so infantile a level...

Please read the PM I sent you...

[Grumplestillskin]

There was no doubt in the minds of the rest of the world, and Democrats included, for many years prior to GWB even becoming president.

No, not the rest of the world at all. Trust me on that. There were some shills amongst certain governments, and there were pay offs etc to curry favour with the US. But the rest of the world? uh-uh - no way, no how..

[jimnyc]

You have produced ZERO evidence of ANYTHING!

What would you like evidence of that I wrote?

You can snarl and make all the ugly faces you want...but if you can't back it up with facts, then it doesn't mean a bloody thing...does it? If you've got some evidence from John Kerry or George Washington himself, then COUGH IT UP. I'm from Missouri. As for Kerry, he's not "my boy." He's a member of Skull & Bones, just like President Loser, and for that reason I don't trust EITHER of them. YOU'RE the one who seems so obsessed with him. Why is that, exactly?

A few posts about him doesn't make me obsessed. And again, what have I written that you would like proof of?

As for our White House halfwit being AWOL, apparently the regulations in 1973 were somewhat more lax for Texas and/or Alabama Reservists...but there STILL exists a six-month period when he neither present nor accounted for. That's AWOL in my book, whether a regulation charge sheet exists for article 86 or not. And if you think he couldn't--or wouldn't--tamper with his own service records, then I've got a bridge I just know you'll be interested in.

He wasn't awol, and still isn't, no amount of bellyaching will make your opinion change into fact.

YOU'RE the only one showing nasty disposition, spud; I refuse to descend to so infantile a level...

Really, you don't know me very well then! I thought I've been rather civil thus far...

[TheStripey1]

I'ts not Bashing....

It's showing the truth...

But you go on and call it whatever you have to...

What you are failing to grasp, Steffy, is that bashing the dems, any of them, really has NO effect on me... Clinton included...

I will however defend any veteran democrat who are unjustly attacked by righties that don't apply the same yardstick to their own...

I have to tell you, that had I known how FEW republican congress critters stood up when it was their turn to serve, I would have left the republican party long before '03...

[jimnyc]

No, not the rest of the world at all. Trust me on that. There were some shills amongst certain governments, and there were pay offs etc to curry favour with the US. But the rest of the world? uh-uh - no way, no how..

MANY of the worlds powers thought Iraq had, or was in the midst of developing WMD's. Do you not believe that, or do I need to find links for you?

[Grumplestillskin]

MANY of the worlds powers thought Iraq had, or was in the midst of developing WMD's. Do you not believe that, or do I need to find links for you?

They believed the same intel as the US. Believing the same intel is different from believing indepedent, varifiable intel.

Do you want me to link to the UN inspectors who thought otherwise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

With references

[TheStripey1]

Originally Posted by Gunny:
You obviously have NO idea what "support the troops" means.

Then posted by me:
for the sake of arguement, why don't you tell us what you think it means...

Why? You feel like arguing with me again?

Sure... bring it on... but seriously, what do YOU consider to be support for the troops?

Adequate body armor? we citizens shouldn't have to provide our military with support like that, that should come from the government...

Proper training? see above...

Adequate rest between deployments? ditto...

ohhhhhhhhh, I know... a yellow magnetic ribbon for your SUV... and fly the flag on July 4th.... is that your idea of support for the troops?

[jimnyc]

Denmark - http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040419181733.x7tow1jx.html

French, British, Germans and the UN - http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...129-afps01.htm

"The problem we face is that before the war, not only did the U.S. administration and U.S. intelligence, but the French, British, Germans and the U.N. all thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not discovering them tells us we've got a more fundamental problem."

Hell, Saddam's own Generals believed they possessed WMD's - http://www.brocktonmass.com/news/publish/5000639.shtml

[TheStripey1]

A) Obviously, anything I declared today would be premature, wouldn't it?

B) You know as well as I do that we could easily clean that place up in 3 months. It's just no one's got the stones to do it, it seems.

C) However, I hardly consider it the "quagmire" some would attempt to have everyone believe.

A) Too bad the administration doesn't take your counsel... they might not have stuck their feet into their mouths quite as often as they have...

Mission Accomplished... no insurgency... baathist and dead enders... last throes...

yep... you'd be better counsel than those they have now... or had then as the case may be...

B) And that would be what? cuz gunny, our shock and awe campaign didn't amount to much... sure we knocked down a few buildings but...

C) what do you call it then? a victory?

good... let's go home then...

[TheStripey1]

Sorry, but you would be incorrect. WMD's were NEVER a sole reason for invading Iraq.

it was the bill of bads they sold the congress and the american public...

[TheStripey1]

Originally Posted by Birdzeye
Now that's just disingenious.

In GWB'S March 22, 2003 radio address, he said:


Quote:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

Rater disengenuous, or blind I should say, for you to bold what you want and ignore the rest which supports DMP's statement.

ok... no WMD, Saddam's gone and the Iraqis are free to kill themselves...

can we go home now?

[5stringJeff]

Sure... bring it on... but seriously, what do YOU consider to be support for the troops?

Adequate body armor? we citizens shouldn't have to provide our military with support like that, that should come from the government...

Proper training? see above...

Adequate rest between deployments? ditto...

All three are provided by the government.

[TheStripey1]

The tigger needs to simplify his posts. Instead of constantly rehashing the demo manta and talking points he just needs to post "I HATE BUSH". He must have spent the past week watching every network talking head and taking notes for the posts here.

And when he's given facts like Steph gave him he blows them off.

Gaffer... I didn't blow steffy off, I gave her rep points... but you, like she, are failing to grasp that I don't like Clinton either... you're just preaching to the choir...

the dems think like I do? you're kidding... I'm in favor of a STRONG border... ours that is... and I'm in favor of mandatory military service... how many dems are in favor of that? I'm in favor of small government that stays out of the private lives of it's citizens...