|
Post by genesda on Apr 16, 2004 4:36:12 GMT -5
So where are they. Didn't VP Cheney say they knew exactly where they were? They did know where they were. did you forget the delays because of your valued U.N.? It doesn't take a genius to understand that Saddam disposed of them either by hiding them or moving them to other places. The FACT is that we KNOW he had them. The question is WHERE ARE THEY? [/color] Then how come the administration has backed away from that claim? Backed awat? says Who? [/color] If you trully believe that, I am very concerned for you. If it helps the Democrats win in November, you bet they would welcome more deaths of american soldiers. I'd bet they are hoping for another big attack here so they can shout from the roof tops that Bush isn't protecting america, if they thought that would assure them victory. Some Democrats were lamenting the fact that 9/11 didn't happen when Clinton was president. [/color] Yes, Kennedy was responsible for sending the original advisors. We'll never know if he would have escalated it the way Johnson and Nixon did. Your memory is short. Johnson (Democrat) lied about the "Gulf of Tonkin" attack so he could escalate the war. Nixon (R) escalated the bombing in order to END the war because of the political climate that your buddy Kerry was helping to spread. Johnson lost the will of the american people to win in Vietnam because Democrats never understand the military or the proper use of military force. Instead of letting the Generals run the war, he tried to do it from the White House. Nixon took over a LOST situation and tried his best to bring it to an honorable end for america. [/color] Which media are you watching? I haven't seen too many soldiers interviewed about the partisan coverage. I watch Fox News Channel. There isn't as much bias there. [/color] Was this the same partisan media that covered the Monica Lewinsky scandal ad naseum? Yea, they covered it after they couldn't avoid it any longer. The so called main media avoided the story as long as they could. Open your eyes. If Bush had an intern coming to the White House around 11:00 AT NIGHT TO "DROP OFF A RESUME", the media would have 1000 questions for him with as many inuendos about that visit. In Kerry's case, they accepted his one sentence as though it was the gos[pel truth without even asking for any verification at all. Chris Dodd and Trent Lott is another example of the partisan media at work. I would be embarrased if the media treated Bush the way they treat liberal politicians because it's not fair and unbiased. They're not even honest to admit they are liberals making the news instead of reporting facts. [/color] You didn't answer the question...why does President Bush want the UN now? I don't know what his plans are. My guess is that they would make useful tools now that the fighting is almost over. They certainly aren't worth their weight in a fight. [/color] I know that. Your the one that brought Vietnam into this discussion in your rebuttal of Sen Kerry's op-ed piece. But President Bush can learn from the mistakes of Johnson and Nixon. By the way, I've been vindicated on my comments about Kerry and his medals. Last night on the Fox Channel, he was accused of getting "three" purple hearts because he knew he could go home after three were issued. He had very minor injuries and he played them up to get the medals as a ticket home. Again, I don't fault him for this. It's just that he is allowing himself to be held up as a hero for political purposes and that is the rub.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 16, 2004 4:39:10 GMT -5
You know RealistState, Im almost certain that genesda just wants to start trouble. Look how he signs his posts "It's not safe enough to elect liberal Democrats, especially the French looking Kerry.", I mean come on!! That is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard! He can't have a normal, adult disscussion or debate. He and others call names constantly just like children. How does he expect anyone to take him seriously?? Do you actually think you're taken seriously?LOL!! You're....never mind, you really don't get it. [/color] He's nothing but a troll. Best thing to do with annoying childern is to ignore them and they'll go away. Because they can't exactly argue by themselves. LOL!!! Normal conversation!!! Even Realistate can see where you're coming from. There's nothing normal about your posts. Then again, maybe you do consider yourself as being normal. You just don't like your names and comments aimed back at yourself. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 16, 2004 4:46:22 GMT -5
Yes, the fact are: - No WMDs have been found Not yet. Who said the search was over? [/color] - The administration has stated they found no link between 9/11 and Saddam Where did you hear this? Cnn? Msnbc? [/color] - And the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature The mission was accomplished. Saddam is gone. Is there still work left, yes. No one in their right mind would think that everything would change over night after Saddam was removed. That is why we're a democracy. Kerry will be rejected by the sensible just as Algore was. [/color] Yes, the "fact" is that the Pentagon made the decision under George H Bush what armament was required. There was a different mission under George H. They had the equipment that was needed then. Clinton CHANGED the mission and didn't send WHAT WAS REQUESTED. [/color] Then review the "facts". He was court martialed for defying an order of a US officer, not UN. Under military code, defying a direct order from a superior is a court martial offense. Yes, the order he refused was to wear on a U.N. uniform! [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 16, 2004 5:51:01 GMT -5
I watch Fox News Channel. There isn't as much bias there. [/color][/quote] From Fox News: Voters Still Evenly Dividedwww.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115208,00.html
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 16, 2004 6:15:24 GMT -5
From Fox News: Voters Still Evenly DividedIf Bush is as bad as you think he is, he should be way behind right now. After all, Kerry has the partisan media helping him. It's amazing that Kerry needs any money judging by the way the media hails him and makes excuses for his flip flops. Rush says there is a poligtical reason Bill and Hillary started hanging with Kerry. He said he heard that Bill threatened to release a book that would not be helpful to Kerry if Hillary wasn't on the ticket in November. Look for both of them to be involved in a Kerry presidency if he wins.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Apr 16, 2004 10:31:35 GMT -5
So where are they. Didn't VP Cheney say they knew exactly where they were? They did know where they were. did you forget the delays because of your valued U.N.? It doesn't take a genius to understand that Saddam disposed of them either by hiding them or moving them to other places. The FACT is that we KNOW he had them. The question is WHERE ARE THEY? [/color] [/quote] HA HA HA HA HA HA HA This is hilarious!!! But wait, Powell is saying the intellegence (BUSH's byt he way) WAS FLAWED!!! Sow aht was it? They knew where they were OR the data was flawed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 16, 2004 21:17:05 GMT -5
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida."
- - George W Bush, in in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday, 9/14/2003 on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 16, 2004 21:20:34 GMT -5
If you trully believe that, I am very concerned for you. If it helps the Democrats win in November, you bet they would welcome more deaths of american soldiers. I'd bet they are hoping for another big attack here so they can shout from the roof tops that Bush isn't protecting america, if they thought that would assure them victory. Some Democrats were lamenting the fact that 9/11 didn't happen when Clinton was president. [/color][/quote] This is very sick that anyone would even think of something like this. I am praying for you!
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 16, 2004 21:47:16 GMT -5
Yes, the fact are: - No WMDs have been found Not yet. Who said the search was over? [/color][/quote] ...and search, and search, and search..... [/color][/quote] George W Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, White House spokesman Scott McClellan [/color][/quote] The maybe the banner should have said: "Mission (Almost) Accomplished!!" [/color][/quote] That's not completely true. Al Gore won the popular vote by a large margin. He lost in the "Electoral College" by a decision by the Supreme Court. So I wouldn't say that it would make it an "acclaimation" or "rejection". [/color][/quote] You're incorrect. The mission to Somalia was always characterized as a police action for humanitarian purposes. The strategist in the Pentagon determined only "light" armor was required. The "mission" in Somalia was well underway when the Clinton administration took it over. [/color][/quote] Again, the courtmartial was for disobeying a direct order. What he refused to do was immaterial under US military code.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 16, 2004 21:57:41 GMT -5
From Fox News: Voters Still Evenly DividedIf Bush is as bad as you think he is, he should be way behind right now. After all, Kerry has the partisan media helping him.[/color][/quote] It just shows that there is no "ground swell" support for the job that President Bush is doing. [/color][/quote] But it still is nothing campared to the political "war chest" that the Bush campaign has built. Kind of sad that an incumbent would need so much money to get his message out. [/color][/quote] Why go to an entertainer for spin. Jay Leno, David Letterman, etc are much more entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Apr 16, 2004 22:04:43 GMT -5
Again, the courtmartial was for disobeying a direct order. What he refused to do was immaterial under US military code. What you said here reminds me of the case of the female pilot who was discharged from the military for "having an affair". Or so that's what everyone calls it. I was at Minot Air Force Base when this happened. I remember seeing CNN come, etc. Of course I was still in high school and didn't care all that much, but I still remember it. Everyone thought she was kicked out for having an affair. What they fail to realize is that the affair was immaterial. She was kicked out for disobeying a direct order. She was told not to see him, she did, she disobeyed an order. What the order was doesn't matter, she disobeyed it. Sorry I can't remember the woman's name right now. It's been 7 years or so now. OY! I'm getting old.
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 16, 2004 22:31:31 GMT -5
She was kicked out for disobeying a direct order. She was told not to see him, she did, she disobeyed an order. What the order was doesn't matter, she disobeyed it. Sorry I can't remember the woman's name right now. It's been 7 years or so now. OY! I'm getting old. There's an inherent problem with that philosophy when you think about it. You know babysis, the military code has so much to be desired in terms of protecting the right of its service men and women, not to mention what is ethical in things and actions of people. When I was in Germany, an enlisted man got off "scott free" from assaulting me because he demanded trial by courtmartial. You know what he ended up later doing that resulted in his immediate dishonorable discharge. He raped a German woman. The US military got him out of there ASAP to save their back side.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Apr 16, 2004 22:33:20 GMT -5
There's an inherent problem with that philosophy when you think about it. You know babysis, the military code has so much to be desired in terms of protecting the right of is service men, women, and what is ethical in things. When I was in Germany, an enlisted man got off "scott free" from assaulting me because he demanded trial by courtmartial. You know what he ended up later doing that resulted in his immediate dishonorable discharge. He raped a German woman. The US military got him out of there ASAP to save their back side. I'm sorry that happened to you, but I'm not sure what it has to do with disobeying a direct order.
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 16, 2004 22:37:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry that happened to you, but I'm not sure what it has to do with disobeying a direct order. The point is there are many, many incompetent and egotistical jerks giving those orders. Doesn't make them moral or right, nor justified. I wouldn't be to quick to look at something as honorable if you've never been on the inside.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 16, 2004 22:50:56 GMT -5
There's an inherent problem with that philosophy when you think about it. You know babysis, the military code has so much to be desired in terms of protecting the right of its service men and women, not to mention what is ethical in things and actions of people. When I was in Germany, an enlisted man got off "scott free" from assaulting me because he demanded trial by courtmartial. You know what he ended up later doing that resulted in his immediate dishonorable discharge. He raped a German woman. The US military got him out of there ASAP to save their back side. I am sorry to hear that you went through such an ordeal. Unfortuantely the "Good of the Service" guidelines still runs pretty deep. As you already know, court martial, is the catch phrase for any tribunal that convenes for judging US military personnel. In no way was I trying to equate protocol court martial with a criminal court martial.
|
|