Before the start of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration wrongly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA and had weapons of mass destruction and that there was a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks in the USA. It has since been learned that those questionable reasons given to the American people to gain support for the war against Iraq, turned out to be false. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Now the USA is fighting an unjustified, unnecessary war against Iraq, our soldiers, American civilian workers, and our coalition allies, etc, are being killed. There has been a scandal over the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. A group of disgustingly perverted people in the U.S. military brought shame and disgrace to our country, they beat, sexually abused, took humiliating nude pornographic pictures, and also tortured and killed prisoners. A U.S. soldier even raped an Iraqi boy. That was such a dispicable perverted crime commited against that boy, it's sickening. The soldier or whoever it was that did it, someone should take a baseball bat and bust his head open. The USA is supposed to uphold itself up to higher standards than that. G W Bush has tried unsuccessfully to convince people that the war in Iraq is a part of the war against terrorism, like the war in Afghanistan. When Saddam was running Iraq he had the borders under control, and kept out the terrorists. That's not to say there weren't some terrorists there, there were probably a small number. Instead of lessening terrorism, Bush's war in Iraq has been a failure and caused terrorism to grow and spread. In Iraq where there were almost no terrorists, now they're flooding into that country. They want to kill as many U.S. and coalition soldiers, etc, as they can, and thwart the USA's plans for the future of Iraq.


__________________

:o :( :bike:

When I see posts like this it makes me feel very safe with a Republican in the White House.

I’m glad you feel safe…
With the 90% chance of an attack
The “dramatic increase in terrorism in the world”
The rise in Al Queda membership

Good job, Bushy.

Originally posted by Overdose
I’m glad you feel safe…
With the 90% chance of an attack
The “dramatic increase in terrorism in the world”
The rise in Al Queda membership

Good job, Bushy.
The last terror attack on this country was under the intel during the end of Clintons whitehouse, we havent been attacked at home since.... I guess maybe if you worry about a threat of another attack then terror has done its job.
By the way since Zarqawi wrote a letter to UBL saying that he was having problems getting recruits, money and available targets, the war must be making you safer.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
The last terror attack on this country was under the intel during the end of Clintons whitehouse, we havent been attacked at home since.... I guess maybe if you worry about a threat of another attack then terror has done its job.
By the way since Zarqawi wrote a letter to UBL saying that he was having problems getting recruits, money and available targets, the war must be making you safer.

How can I not worry about terror??

When Ashcroft says we have a 90% chance of an attack, but we "don't know where or when" Or when the terror report shows a dramatic increase in terrorism worldwide...Or when Al Queda membership is rising....

Yet, I'm not supposed to worry about terror? And I'm supposed to think this war is making us safer...when really, it is indeed making us less safe.

I refuse to sit here, and believe things are "OK" when in reality, things aren’t.

Originally posted by Overdose
How can I not worry about terror??

When Ashcroft says we have a 90% chance of an attack, but we "don't know where or when" Or when the terror report shows a dramatic increase in terrorism worldwide...Or when Al Queda membership is rising....

Yet, I'm not supposed to worry about terror? And I'm supposed to think this war is making us safer...when really, it is indeed making us less safe.

I refuse to sit here, and believe things are "OK" when in reality, things aren’t.

and things would be different with someone else in the white house??? no. it would be worse with gore. gore would have been a wimp about it and not gone after these terrorists. no one ever thought that someone would crash planews into the twin towers and i know your ted kennedy-like thinking, overdose. you blame bush for all of 9-11 and think that gore would have foiled it. sorry, but gore was in the white house for 8 years as vp and he didnt do shit!!!! stop being such a pesimist. you shouldnt just bash the president but show reasons why kerry would do any better or gore for that matter

Originally posted by no moore please
and things would be different with someone else in the white house??? no.

You know this for a fact? You have no creditable evidence to back that statement up.


Originally posted by no moore please
it would be worse with gore. gore would have been a wimp about it and not gone after these terrorists.

You know this, too? You know he would have been a wimp? You know this for certain? You do! Wow, that’s so amazing!

Originally posted by no moore please
you blame bush for all of 9-11 and think that gore would have foiled it.

I blame Ashcroft for ignoring terrorism warnings, that were apparent. I blame Bush for choosing him, and selecting him to be with him in office.

And, maybe Gore would have foiled it…you don’t know. He could have selected someone with a bit of intelligence to at least pay attention to terrorism warnings.

Originally posted by no moore please
sorry, but gore was in the white house for 8 years as vp and he didnt do shit!!!!

And President Bush did, do something?

"Clinton’s administration was praised by two former Reagan counter terrorism officials. "

“Overall, I give them very high marks,” Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counter terrorism in the Reagan State Department, told the Washington post, “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger”

Bremer said that Clinton, “correctly focused on bin Laden” and “by any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any President before him,” Barton Gellman reported. He also said Clinton was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”

Re-Search by, Al Franken...

:hitout:

Originally posted by Overdose
You know this for a fact? You have no creditable evidence to back that statement up.

before 9-11 were you thinking in ypour head that terrorists are going to take 4 planes and try to crash them into buildings??no you didnt and i know this for a fact.



You know this, too? You know he would have been a wimp? You know this for certain? You do! Wow, that’s so amazing!

you look at the things gore did in office with clinton and the things thatb he says now it is clear that he would not have done anything different and to say that he would have thought of the attack is silly


I blame Ashcroft for ignoring terrorism warnings, that were apparent. I blame Bush for choosing him, and selecting him to be with him in office.

what you forget to realize is that during clinton's reign there were terrorist attacks that were ignored such as the U.S.S Cole. if GORE was so good he would have knwonn that osama was behind it and maybe tried to get him when sudan handed them to us on a silver platter??

And, maybe Gore would have foiled it…you don’t know. He could have selected someone with a bit of intelligence to at least pay attention to terrorism warnings.

Now you are saying that ashcroft has no intelligence...how do YOU back that up??



And President Bush did, do something?

"Clinton’s administration was praised by two former Reagan counter terrorism officials. "

“Overall, I give them very high marks,” Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counter terrorism in the Reagan State Department, told the Washington post, “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger”

Bremer said that Clinton, “correctly focused on bin Laden” and “by any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any President before him,” Barton Gellman reported. He also said Clinton was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”

Re-Search by, Al Franken...

and there are thousands more people who dont think that clintion did enough and he is getting a free rride because of the liberal media...so to get two people doesnt fool me. i am no rookie to your misleading quotes
:hitout:

ouch. those comments got messed up, sorry. i forgot to get the bold out.

Originally posted by no moore please
before 9-11 were you thinking in ypour head that terrorists are going to take 4 planes and try to crash them into buildings??no you didnt and i know this for a fact.

Ashcroft got a briefing that said we were in danger of an air plane attack in America, and replied “I don’t want to see these anymore” So, actually, if Ashcroft did paid attention, he would have, maybe been able to investigate more, and stop the attacks.



Originally posted by no moore please
you look at the things gore did in office with clinton and the things thatb he says now it is clear that he would not have done anything different and to say that he would have thought of the attack is silly

Examples please…because, I’ve seen many, many good things from Senators that say they did so much against terrorism, and even Reagan officials, that are Republican, praised Clinton and Gore.



Originally posted by no moore please
what you forget to realize is that during clinton's reign there were terrorist attacks that were ignored such as the U.S.S Cole. if GORE was so good he would have known that osama was behind it and maybe tried to get him when sudan handed them to us on a silver platter??

Did he get a briefing that there was going to be an attack, like Rumsfeld…? Besides, I’m not blaming BUSH for 9/11 I’m blaming Rumsfeld. So maybe, you shouldn’t blame Gore, but the person who was in charge of terror warnings during their Administration. Which further proves, that Gore, would, have most likely, not been a “whimp” since it wasn’t HIS fault.


Originally posted by no moore please
and there are thousands more people who dont think that clintion did enough and he is getting a free rride because of the liberal media...so to get two people doesnt fool me. i am no rookie to your misleading quotes

Actually, those quotes, were from “Republicans!” wow, what a shocker!! Besides every Republican will say he did a bad job, and every Democrat will say he did a good job. The interesting thing is, two Reagan terrorism experts said he did a wonderful job, which is why I just quoted those two.

Originally posted by Overdose
Ashcroft got a briefing that said we were in danger of an air plane attack in America, and replied “I don’t want to see these anymore” So, actually, if Ashcroft did paid attention, he would have, maybe been able to investigate more, and stop the attacks.





Examples please…because, I’ve seen many, many good things from Senators that say they did so much against terrorism, and even Reagan officials, that are Republican, praised Clinton and Gore.





Did he get a briefing that there was going to be an attack, like Rumsfeld…? Besides, I’m not blaming BUSH for 9/11 I’m blaming Rumsfeld. So maybe, you shouldn’t blame Gore, but the person who was in charge of terror warnings during their Administration. Which further proves, that Gore, would, have most likely, not been a “whim” since it wasn’t HIS fault.




Actually, those quotes, were from “Republicans!” wow, what a shocker!! Besides every Republican will say he did a bad job, and every democrat will say he did a good job. The interesting thing is, two Reagan terrorism experts said he did a wonderful job, which is why I just quoted those two.


there are people in the middle who look at BOTH SIDES to see that bush didnt do all he could do but he shouldnt be the only one who takes the heat. to say he betrayed america and stuff like that is hgorrible. do you think bush wanted the attacks to happen??

Originally posted by no moore please
there are people in the middle who look at BOTH SIDES to see that bush didnt do all he could do but he shouldnt be the only one who takes the heat.

Never said he should have taken all the heat. He is responsible for some. But mostly I put the blame on Rumsfeld…and Bush for electing someone with such little intelligence.

Originally posted by no moore please
to say he betrayed america and stuff like that is hgorrible. do you think bush wanted the attacks to happen??

No, I don’t think he wanted them to happen, and I don’t think he betrayed America. But he could have done far more.

Originally posted by Overdose
Never said he should have taken all the heat. He is responsible for some. But mostly I put the blame on Rumsfeld…and Bush for electing someone with such little intelligence.



No, I don’t think he wanted them to happen, and I don’t think he betrayed America. But he could have done far more.


and could clinton have done more??? that also, but you most likely wont admit it

Originally posted by no moore please
and could clinton have done more??? that also, but you most likely wont admit it

You can think what YOU want, but you don't KNOW for SURE.

Originally posted by Overdose
You can think what YOU want, but you don't KNOW for SURE.


WELL I CAN SAY THE SAME TO YOU ABOUT BUSH. JUST ADMIT THAT CLINTON DIDNT DO EVERYTHING HE COULD HAVE.

Originally posted by no moore please
WELL I CAN SAY THE SAME TO YOU ABOUT BUSH. JUST ADMIT THAT CLINTON DIDNT DO EVERYTHING HE COULD HAVE.

I’m not saying he did everything he “could”, but as I’ve pointed out, even Republicans commended him for a strong anti-terrorism effort. No President can do everything, but he did a lot more then the majority of Presidents, we’ve had in the past. Reagan’s officials said he was the first Administration to really put terrorism as a top priority. Whereas the Bush Administration ignored terror warnings, and did far less then Clinton’s administration.

In 1998 Clinton was offered Usama bin Laden and most of his network by The Sudan, Clinto replied that he didnt have enough evidence to hold him and offered him to the Saudis, they didnt want him either. So now we have this war..... Bushs fault? No, Clintons fault? more so than Bushs.
Look it up, I have posted the article from the LA Times written by the man who brokered the deal. It is dated right after 9/11 not in an election year.

Actually after the embassy bombings, Clinton issued the authorization of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. The Right-Wing argues this never took place, but it did.

Yes but whey not take the offer and have no more deaths? So yes he ordered the killing of bin Laden but he passed on taking him before that. I guess he was trying to cover up his short comings.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
So yes he ordered the killing of bin Laden but he passed on taking him before that. I guess he was trying to cover up his short comings.

To say he did nothing is false.

And, I’m sure we didn’t have enough, evidence to take Bin Laden when he was offered to Clinton.