1) We are losing Afghanistan back to the Taliban.

2) We have lost Somalia.

3) We are Losing in Iraq.

4) We cannot stand up to North Korea or Iran.

5) We have no Credibility among aour allies.

6) We "captured" a group of clowns in Miami who were ENTRAPPED by some moron from Homeland Security posing as a member of Al Quaeda. I predict acquittals. These idiots couldnt find the local sears let alone the sears tower.


Gee, I sure feel safe with this gang in power.

Well all good things must come to an end

Beware of the sleeping Giant China,they will soon be the most powerful country in the world

Iran, North Korea, China....give me a reason to sleep good at night.

Well maybe some one should tell Mr Bush to mind his own buisness,and concentrate on running his own country

forget winning n losing all these battles do we even relize how man innocent people are being killed everday women and children. george bush is just a glorified hitler. he is eliminating one religion just as hitler did, how is this not a genecide or how is he not considered a major war criminal. may george bush burn in hell

Bush isn't Hitler. I don't respect the President, but he aint the Fuhrer.

dontomasso, I don't know WHERE you get your information, and I've already conceded on this Board that you are a lost cause, so whatever you post here doesn't affect me personally, and doesn't change the fact that GW was right to go into Iraq.

But do yourself a favor and get your head out of the sand.

You'll feel alot better...someday.

Apple

but he is killing off a religious group which he hates for no reason just as hitler did. hitler was a horrible man dont get me wrong but george is giving you bullshit for y all these people have to be massacred. i mean the guy bombed afghanistan for a MONTH killing people that have no reason to be killed espcially in the fashion he's doing it. and now in another country killing those people. how is this even justifiable. i mean imagine non stop for 30 days everything around you and your home including your family being destroyed and mutilated. 9/11 is happening everday over in Iraq. say what u want but to me this man is man may not be hitler but he itching closer. y do they always assassinate they the ones fighting for better things for this country n let this moron hang around 8 years.


Iraq

Deaths

What made it right for Bush to invade Iraq? Is it because of their attack on this country (if you're asking "what attack?" right now, that's good, because so am I)? Or because of the WMDs? or to "promote democracy" (which is what we should be doing in Africa right now)? I think we've almost run out of excuses to invade Iraq. Then again, we could always invade Afghanistan, the people responsible for 9/11. I guess it's the United States once again proving that they can't tell brown people apart.

how???

Again, for those who can read and comprehend...see attached for Iraq War Resolution, agreed to by Democarts and Republicans alike..and without which Bush could've done nothing.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

For those who cannot (or will not ) both read and comprehend...well, then keep posting your ignorance & hatred if it keeps you happy. There's not much the rest of us can do about it.

Best,
AppleOnYa

I can see where this thread will end up

Ya, but apparently this board loves those repeating records....

If there are any countries which should be invaded, then it are Soedan, and definitely Congo.
Congo is the representation of hell on Earth.
Too bad no Western countries have any benefits from a Congo without famine, war and hell.

I'm sorry, but this is just a completely ignorant statement. You may hate the man, and that's fine, but the correlation you're trying to draw is nothing short of ridiculous.

Amen to that! I would see no problem with invading Congo.

Unfortunately, it's kind of too late now. We need to get out of this federal debt, and I can't see Bush accomplishing any financial wonders unless it involves cutting spending on some kind of program.

And who's fault is that? When the President of Afghanastan, a man who was elected and is supposed to rid his country and his government of remanents of the Taliban with the help of the coalition forces, comes out and says this : Its not acceptable that hundreds of Afghans have been killed in the recent offensive against the Taliban in four southern provinces. Even if they are Taliban, they are the sons of this land." how is it our fault? Obviously by making a statement such as that, when he is supposed to be a part of the war on terror, he is empowering those who are still left to stand up and fight. His statement that they are "sons of this land" gives them the encouragement to attempt to recapture and control the country. How is this President Bush's fault?


And exactly why did we lose Somalia? Is your memory that short? Or have you conveninetly forgotten that it was President Clinton who failed miserably with his foreign policy in Somalia? It was he who did nothng when our Marines were dragged through the streets after being tortured and maimed! It was Bill Clinton and his administartion who abondoned those people of Somalia.


Says who? You? The Liberal media? While I fully recognize
that our men and woman are getting killed over there, and I don't like it one bit more than you do, I wouldn't say that we are losing Iraq. All I hear from the left is how we are losing the war, how we haven't accomplised anything over there and how the administration has no plan. But three years after those same people who voted to go into Iraq and now get on their political soapboxes to talk out against the war, I have YET to hear an idea, a plan or a suggestion from them. All they seem to do is remind our men and woman who are fighting there everyday that they cannot win this war. And you've managed to get in line right behind them.


We can't? We haven't? Gee, that's news to me. If the leaders of those nations thought in the same manner as you do, then tell me why they haven't made a move against us already? I'll tell you this though ; if we were to cut and run from Iraq in the manner that the liberals want us to, then Iran would be inside of Iraq within a day of our leaving. Iran is flexing it's muscles and making these threats against the US in hopes that people such as yourself support and elect those representatives in this country who after 3 days in office would cut and run. It's what Iran is hoping that our country does. Then they'd
make their move. You can bet on it.

Who, France, Germany, Russia? Gee, that makes me want to go out and beg them for their forgiveness. :rolleyes: But that's ok Don T. You don't have to mention the other twenty something nations out there who have given us their full support through all of this. I guess from your side of the fence, those countries don't count.


So because they are homegrown, and are not part of Al Qaeda, then their being caught doesn't count on the scoreboard for us? According to you it doesn't matter that they were looking to purchase the items they needed to carry out their mission. According to you it doesn't matter that they thought that they had hooked up with an Al Queda operative that would help them get this job done. :rolleyes: That's ridiculous Don T and you know it. ENTRAPPED! It's amazing how without knowing the facts, the liberal left such as yourself immedeatly assumes that these people have been or are being set up! Is that reaction from the lawyer side of your brain or the liberal side? You immedeatly yell ENTRAPMENT! No facts, no details, but you draw your conclusion. The when someone here posts a news story about a terrorist being captured, and we yell "Lock him up!" You and your liberal buddies cry that we are rushing to judgement without the facts! Well isn't that what you've done here? No difference at all. But then again, when it suits your cause, it's ok, but when it doesn't is entrapment and unconstitutional.


Hey, you ever hear of the Taliban, their provision of Al Qaeda training camps and September 11th 2001? Do you live on this planet?


Don Cardi

You should :

DISRUPTED PLOTS SINCE 9/11

West Coast airliner
In mid-2002 the US disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked aeroplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 11 September 2001.


East Coast airliner
In mid-2003 the US and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial aeroplanes.

Jose Padilla
In May 2002, the US disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a dirty bomb in the US.

2004 UK urban targets
In 2004, the US and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

2003 Karachi
In the spring of 2003, the US and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

London Heathrow Airport
In 2003, the US and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 11 September operational figure.

2004 UK
In 2004, the US and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct bombings in the UK.

2002 Gulf shipping
In late 2002 and 2003, the US and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Gulf.

2002 Straits of Hormuz
In 2002, the US and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.

2003 tourist site
In 2003 the US and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

2004 Herald Square Subway Plot
A Pakistani immigrant is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up New York City's herald Square.


And that's all that they've told the public about so far.


Don Cardi

Are you implying that Bush should be assassinated?


Don Cardi

I don't think it's possible to top what Don Cardi has so eloquently done (do I detect a bit of my clever quips in Cardi's oh-so-succinct responses? ) by squelching the usual suspects in this "thread."

And kudos to RRA, for pointing out that some like to imagine this board as a broken record; unfortunately, the needle hasn't worn down. Apologies to those born after the mid-80's, since that last reference probably went way over your heads.

---

Allow me to recollect to a magical time they called the latter half of the 70's...

1.) The Middle East is growing increasingly unstable, and may create future problems for our nation and the world.

2.) Our President blames the American people for our nations problems and claims we have a "crisis of confidence" in his public speeches.

3.) Our President drafted his advisors from a bunch of Georgian cronies who know nothing about the political system but are surely corrupt and filling their own coffers.

4.) Interest rates have skyrocketed to record-highs, exceeding twenty percent, as our economy experiences stagflation and the nation's confidence sinks down the tubes.

5.) American is in the midst of an historic energy crisis, and our President tells us that we can "weather the storm" by "wearing sweaters."

6.) Fifty-three Americans are being held hostage by the ruthless Iranian government while our President sits idly by watching while they are in grave danger.

Gee, I sure feel safe with Jimmy Carter in power. :rolleyes:

Judging by your grammar, I'm not sure what kind of education you've had, but regarding your knowledge of historical facts, you are painstakingly misinformed.

Hitler killed more than Jews, you must realize. He killed Soviets, Poles, Czechs, Slavs, and a plethora of others, and not all were Jews - some were homosexuals, criminals, spies, or just people he didn't like.

Should I get out the worlds-smallest violin again? Do we really want to have a debate on the Pilgrims and Native Americans or Indians throughout American history?

Because I don't mind getting out the belt.

And, yet again, as I've said about a thousand times to you specifically before, France/Germany/Russia/etc. aren't doing anything right now. Why don't they get off their asses and stop this problem? In fact, let's start with who created the problem - your native Belgium, who were some of the best at exploiting the Congolese, no?

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful,"
Double-J

And, yet again, as I've said about a thousand times to you specifically before, France/Germany/Russia/etc. aren't doing anything right now. Why don't they get off their asses and stop this problem? In fact, let's start with who created the problem - your native Belgium, who were some of the best at exploiting the Congolese, no?[/b][/quote]And for the 1000th time, where did I said I only blame the USA? I said, 'all Western countries'. By which I mean, Western Europe, Russia, Australia, USA, and Canada.

Congo is Africa's fifth largest oil producer. The majority of Congolese crude production is heavily reliant on foreign personnel and technology. Most of Congo's crude oil exports are destined for Western Europe and the United States.

Congo contains an estimated 3.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, the third largest in Africa. In 2002 Chevron invested $32 million in the building of a gas fired power plant in Congo.

So you're gravely mistaken if you believe that the Western World does not want stability in that region of the world. It is quite obvious that stability would be very beneficial to the Western world.


Don Cardi

I'm certainly no Bush-lover, but comparing him to Hitler is ridiculous.

I believe that for the most part his heart is in the right place.

I just don't think that he's all that intelligent, and that he's been misled by many of his advisors, he has a kind of mis-guided view of what the role of the U.S. should be vis a vis the rest of the world, he's way too self-righteous, and he's a bit too dependent upon his religion for guidance than I care to see.

But to say he's anything at all like Adolf Hitler....he has a long way to go before that would be a fair comparison.

That's where you underestimate him, as have so many liberals.

That's simply 'projection'.

It it to your credit though, that you admonish the comparison to Hitler.

Apple

And, yet again, as I've said about a thousand times to you specifically before, France/Germany/Russia/etc. aren't doing anything right now. Why don't they get off their asses and stop this problem? In fact, let's start with who created the problem - your native Belgium, who were some of the best at exploiting the Congolese, no?[/b][/quote]And for the 1000th time, where did I said I only blame the USA? I said, 'all Western countries'. By which I mean, Western Europe, Russia, Australia, USA, and Canada. [/b][/quote]I happen to think that if you're going to mean the superpowers, or members of G8, or the 1st-world nations, then you should say that specifically. To saw "Western" nations tends to imply the West, which typically wouldn't include Russia, Australia, etc., but only the US, Canada, and Mexico, and almost always refers specifically to the USA.

This is one thing I've always questioned, since it seems like there is either two choices in a President - an amoral President who goes to the Cathedral in D.C. for show (Clinton), or a President like Bush who expresses his faith and is deemed a zealot.

I'm just wondering - what particular view, if any, makes you think he's "too dependent on his religion," since most of the stances (Gay Marriage, Abortion, Stem Cells) aren't exclusive to religious beliefs or interpretations.

"One nation under God,"
Double-J

The Hitler comparison made by that member is just too outrageous to even answer as far as I am concerned.

I have to agree with you on some of your points though, and the ones that I don't agree with you on probably come down to the different way that you and I perceive him.

I agree that some of his advisors leave a lot to be desired. And while a a part of me admires him for his willingness to speak out about God and his deep beliefs in him, there is also a part of me that feels that on certain occassion he brings his beliefs in God into the mix when there really is no need to.

There is no question, at least in my mind, that his heart is in the right place.

Now where I disagree with you comes down to the way that you perceive him versus the way that I do.

While there is absolutely no question that his speaking abilities, when addressing the public or the press can really use some sprucing up, I also see that on some occassions he really speaks from his heart and not his script.

I think that many times people such as yourself and the press mistake his confidence for self-righteousness or cockiness. I sincerely believe that he is a very confident person who really believes that his ideas and his plans are someday going to make the world a better place for all. I truely think that President George W. Bush is a compassionate man who sincerely wants to see the people of the middle east, and the world for that matter, live in a democracy. I feel that deep down he really believes that America, with him leading it, can eventually make this happen.

I don't think that he is a stupid man at all and I see him as a confident man, (yes with very weak public speaking skills) who had the vision and the foresight to see where this world was headed based on how the middle east was shaping up with people like Saddam in power, and the rise of Al Qaeda, The Taliban and terrorist organizations like that.

His vision to democratize the central part of the middle eastern world, was one that I believe truely came from his heart and soul.

His compassion was evident in the days and months after 9/11. One would have had to been blind not to see the hurt and the pain that he felt for this country and it's people in his first State Of The Union Address immedeatly after 9/11. It showed in his eyes.

And I also felt that when he made his state of the Union Address announcing that we were going to start a bombing campaign in Iraq because Saddam refuse to meet the deadline for getting out, he labored about making such a decision and it took it's toll on him. He looked very hurt and distraught when he made the announcment that we had to go inot Iraq, his eyes showing the pain of having to finally come to that decision to 'give the order' to attack.


The eyes Chico, they NEVER lie!


Don Cardi

DC, this is where we disagree. I think that the President's campaign against Iraq came from a personal vendetta, to finish up what his father didn't. Imagine if the first President Bush had actually listened to Schwarzkopf and given him the extra time he asked for, to finish the job properly?? I wonder what the future would've held.

Although I do feel he embraced the nation after September 11th and was grateful for the unified front that we as a people offered him, I think that he made a mess of Homeland Security, which was a golden opportunity to create an agency capable of real achievements. Instead, it became an agency run by political cronies that were not equipped to deal with their responsibilities. A real waste, IMHO.

What exactly in your opinion were their responsibilities?

Would it have anything to do with Don Cardi's earlier post...entitled : DISRUPTED PLOTS SINCE 9/11 ?

As for that 'personal vendetta' reason, you've given it before and it's quite unrealistic. While the attempted assasination plot against Former President George H.W. Bush IS listed as one of the points in the Iraq War Resolution (have you read that yet?), it is certainly not THE reason G.W. went to war. Even if he were NOT the father of the current President, he is a former president whose life was threatened by a foreign government. Also, according to George Stephenapoulus in his book 'All Too Human', President Clinton also launched the first series of air strikes against Hussein...'in defense of the president he had defeated.'

From the book:
"Two months earlier, Kuwaiti authorities had arrested fourteen men for planning to place a 175-pound car bomb in the parth of former President Bush as he received an award in Kuwait City. Immediately after the arrest, Clinton ordered the FBI and CIA to determin if this assasination attempt was authorized by Saddam Hussein. The official report was due on June 24, but we already knew that the investigation had established a link between the bombing suspects and the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

Also from the book:
"It's a small, select club, a peerage, the few men alive at any one time who have served as president. What unites them, ultimately, overwhelms partisan differences or even the bitter memories of past political battles. Only they know what it's like to be president - to order troops into battle.....to sit alone in the Oval Office late at night and contemplate the imperfect (emphasis added) choices that are the stuff of history."

And true, in effect GW is finishing what his father started, however it is in part due to the fact that Saddam violated many if not all of the resolutions he agreed to in order to remain in power after being defeated in the Gulf War, which was Bush 41's answer to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

So what GW is really finishing is what Saddam Hussein himself started, would have finished given the opportunity, and which between 1993 and 2000 (during which time there were MANY attacks against the USA both at home and abroad), the Clinton Administration and many of their Dem pals including John Kerry were quite vocal in claiming what should be done (about Saddam, that is)...but were too cowardly to carry out.

(Thanks in part to the idiotic contributions of Madeline Albright - talk about being 'misled' by advisors...)

Thank GOD for George W. Bush.

AppleOnYa

You're right. If it wasn't for him Dick Cheney would be president.