Doubtless Bush is wise and astute to assert a controlling interest over those choices of private individuals which bring harm to no one. Yet I would argue that he might better build on his existing achievements of going to war for no reason, offending our allies, trashing the environment, and directing an economic policy that enriches the wealthy while producing a net loss of jobs.
William Innes, Missoula, Montana, USA
--------
Bush's comments regarding teenage abstinence and the outlawing of gay marriage show how abhorrently out of touch with reality the White House thief really is.
Joel Morgan, London
---------
The following link represents the clarity of thought Mr. GWB has. The logic is simple.
Step 1) show your finger to the world and bomb the place and make chaos.
Step 2) ask the world for aid because you now control the oil from the nation.
Hmmm? If I were to take this thread as a cross section of opinion ( which yes I know is inaccurate ) I'd say Bush's speech wasn't received with shall we say open arms.
D. Technology-Focus on ways to depend less on foreign energy sources.
just one thing, i think the "read between the lines" on this part is not something altruistic like alternative fuels, just "allow me to drill in alaska."
Hmmm? If I were to take this thread as a cross section of opinion ( which yes I know is inaccurate ) I'd say Bush's speech wasn't received with shall we say open arms.
Too bad we aren't more representative of the American public here. (Well, at least in this one respect. )
This is the organization that is sitting on an interview with the late UK weapons expert Dr David Kelly - an interview given months before his July suicide where he stated he believed Saddam had WMD and might use them! This BBC, this shameless Saudi tool, of course published the opposite.
I am no US citizen, and didn't hear the SOTU, but from reports i figure he actually claimed the US is safer now and the war on terror going ok, and the ridiculing of the international community justified, bcause they found a piece of paper in Iraq with the text: 'We want to develop WMD's so we can destroy the US in the blink of an eye'?
I am no US citizen, and didn't hear the SOTU, but from reports i figure he actually claimed the US is safer now and the war on terror going ok, and the ridiculing of the international community justified, bcause they found a piece of paper in Iraq with the text: 'We want to develop WMD's so we can destroy the US in the blink of an eye'?
Nice spin!
I'm always amazed when an "outsider" can easily and succinctly distill the situation down to its finite point. Well, okay, maybe a little oversimplified, but accurate.
At the risk of having their reputations permanently destroyed by the right and their constituency, there are millions of American's right now who are doing everything they can to make sure this administration does not continue down this path. It won't be easy. The name calling and un-patriotic assaults on its own citizens will be mind-blowing. The next nine months are going to be very interesting...and painful.
You may want to read the transcript of the SOTU. You'll notice that Bush takes the "blame America's ex-president's first" route when he not-so-slyly mentions that "After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled." That was a direct salvo at Clinton.
Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that you cannot compare the '93 bombing to 9/11 where 3000 American's died. If 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch and 3000 American's died, Bush tries to imply that we (America) would've done nothing about it. Right. To a larger extent, this implication is directed at EVERYONE on the left.
I'm always amazed when an "outsider" can easily and succinctly distill the situation down to its finite point. Well, okay, maybe a little oversimplified, but accurate.
At the risk of having their reputations permanently destroyed by the right and their constituency, there are millions of American's right now who are doing everything they can to make sure this administration does not continue down this path. It won't be easy. The name calling and un-patriotic assaults on its own citizens will be mind-blowing. The next nine months are going to be very interesting...and painful.
You may want to read the transcript of the SOTU. You'll notice that Bush takes the "blame America's ex-president's first" route when he not-so-slyly mentions that "After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled." That was a direct salvo at Clinton.
Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that you cannot compare the '93 bombing to 9/11 where 3000 American's died. If 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch and 3000 American's died, Bush tries to imply that we (America) would've done nothing about it. Right. To a larger extent, this implication is directed at EVERYONE on the left.
And Bush is perfectly correct.
Reagan didn't hesitate for a sec in bombing Libya in retaliation to Kadafi's disco bombing. Saddam bombed the WTC. So what did Clinton do about it?
You didn't know Saddam was behind the '93 WTC bombing?!! That's amazing.
Perhaps I am completely ignorant of this . . . I was under the impression that the blind religious cleric who was behind the bombing was well known and was very much anti-secular governments . . . such as that of Saddam Hussein
perhaps you could post some information or sites that would explain otherwise to me . . .
or are you joking and I am being naive to your cynicism?!
on this planet, last I checked, there was no evidence connecting Saddam to the WTC.
Osama, maybe.
I guess the former CIA director and the current Deputy Defense Secretary, among others, don't know what they're talking about. So perhaps you should direct that asinine question to them.
I guess the former CIA director and the current Deputy Defense Secretary, among others, don't know what they're talking about. So perhaps you should direct that asinine question to them.
Perhaps you could link to a site that has them declaring that Saddam had anything to do with the 93 WTC bombings . . . .
and perhaps we should let the guy that was about to go to court the day after 9/11 out as he was linked to the afore mentioned blind cleric {who's name escapes me right now) and therefor was innocent . . . hunh?!
or, perhaps you are about 13 and don't know what you are talking about . . . .
So perhaps you should direct that asinine question to them.
Well the former CIA director and the current Deputy Defense Secretary haven't made the claim, YOU have. Perhaps YOU should answer than question directly?
Perhaps you could link to a site that has them declaring that Saddam had anything to do with the 93 WTC bombings . . . .
and perhaps we should let the guy that was about to go to court the day after 9/11 out as he was linked to the afore mentioned blind cleric {who's name escapes me right now) and therefor was innocent . . . hunh?!
or, perhaps you are about 13 and don't know what you are talking about . . . .
Well the former CIA director and the current Deputy Defense Secretary haven't made the claim, YOU have. Perhaps YOU should answer than question directly?
its funny, I googled like you said, just to humor you . . . and I keep coming up with statements like the fllowing . . . in every page!!
Quote:
WASHINGTON ? U.S. intelligence services unanimously agreed last fall that "no specific intelligence information" tied Iraq to U.S. terrorist attacks, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
*sigh* No inflammatory remarks, no insults, no calling people or their questions asinine, no baiting, no condescension, no attitude. If you boys can't play nice, you won't be playing at all.
Comments
-------
Doubtless Bush is wise and astute to assert a controlling interest over those choices of private individuals which bring harm to no one. Yet I would argue that he might better build on his existing achievements of going to war for no reason, offending our allies, trashing the environment, and directing an economic policy that enriches the wealthy while producing a net loss of jobs.
William Innes, Missoula, Montana, USA
--------
Bush's comments regarding teenage abstinence and the outlawing of gay marriage show how abhorrently out of touch with reality the White House thief really is.
Joel Morgan, London
---------
The following link represents the clarity of thought Mr. GWB has. The logic is simple.
Step 1) show your finger to the world and bomb the place and make chaos.
Step 2) ask the world for aid because you now control the oil from the nation.
Christian Science Monitor
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
D. Technology-Focus on ways to depend less on foreign energy sources.
just one thing, i think the "read between the lines" on this part is not something altruistic like alternative fuels, just "allow me to drill in alaska."
Originally posted by jimmac
Hmmm? If I were to take this thread as a cross section of opinion ( which yes I know is inaccurate ) I'd say Bush's speech wasn't received with shall we say open arms.
Too bad we aren't more representative of the American public here. (Well, at least in this one respect.
Originally posted by talksense101
BBC Online
.
.
.
The BBC ?!!
The BBC is a tool.
This is the organization that is sitting on an interview with the late UK weapons expert Dr David Kelly - an interview given months before his July suicide where he stated he believed Saddam had WMD and might use them! This BBC, this shameless Saudi tool, of course published the opposite.
Nice spin!
Originally posted by SpcMs
I am no US citizen, and didn't hear the SOTU, but from reports i figure he actually claimed the US is safer now and the war on terror going ok, and the ridiculing of the international community justified, bcause they found a piece of paper in Iraq with the text: 'We want to develop WMD's so we can destroy the US in the blink of an eye'?
Nice spin!
I'm always amazed when an "outsider" can easily and succinctly distill the situation down to its finite point. Well, okay, maybe a little oversimplified, but accurate.
At the risk of having their reputations permanently destroyed by the right and their constituency, there are millions of American's right now who are doing everything they can to make sure this administration does not continue down this path. It won't be easy. The name calling and un-patriotic assaults on its own citizens will be mind-blowing. The next nine months are going to be very interesting...and painful.
You may want to read the transcript of the SOTU. You'll notice that Bush takes the "blame America's ex-president's first" route when he not-so-slyly mentions that "After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled." That was a direct salvo at Clinton.
Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that you cannot compare the '93 bombing to 9/11 where 3000 American's died. If 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch and 3000 American's died, Bush tries to imply that we (America) would've done nothing about it. Right. To a larger extent, this implication is directed at EVERYONE on the left.
Originally posted by Northgate
I'm always amazed when an "outsider" can easily and succinctly distill the situation down to its finite point. Well, okay, maybe a little oversimplified, but accurate.
At the risk of having their reputations permanently destroyed by the right and their constituency, there are millions of American's right now who are doing everything they can to make sure this administration does not continue down this path. It won't be easy. The name calling and un-patriotic assaults on its own citizens will be mind-blowing. The next nine months are going to be very interesting...and painful.
You may want to read the transcript of the SOTU. You'll notice that Bush takes the "blame America's ex-president's first" route when he not-so-slyly mentions that "After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled." That was a direct salvo at Clinton.
Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that you cannot compare the '93 bombing to 9/11 where 3000 American's died. If 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch and 3000 American's died, Bush tries to imply that we (America) would've done nothing about it. Right. To a larger extent, this implication is directed at EVERYONE on the left.
And Bush is perfectly correct.
Reagan didn't hesitate for a sec in bombing Libya in retaliation to Kadafi's disco bombing. Saddam bombed the WTC. So what did Clinton do about it?
Originally posted by Blue Shift
And Bush is perfectly correct.
Reagan didn't hesitate for a sec in bombing Libya in retaliation to Kadafi's disco bombing. Saddam bombed the WTC. So what did Clinton do about it?
Saddam bombed the WTC?
Saddam Hussein?
is this a joke?
Originally posted by pfflam
Saddam bombed the WTC?
Saddam Hussein?
is this a joke?
You didn't know Saddam was behind the '93 WTC bombing?!! That's amazing.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
You didn't know Saddam was behind the '93 WTC bombing?!! That's amazing.
Perhaps I am completely ignorant of this . . . I was under the impression that the blind religious cleric who was behind the bombing was well known and was very much anti-secular governments . . . such as that of Saddam Hussein
perhaps you could post some information or sites that would explain otherwise to me . . .
or are you joking and I am being naive to your cynicism?!
Originally posted by Blue Shift
And Bush is perfectly correct.
Reagan didn't hesitate for a sec in bombing Libya in retaliation to Kadafi's disco bombing. Saddam bombed the WTC. So what did Clinton do about it?
Saddam bombed the WTC?
Saddam?
ummm... which fantasy world was that?
on this planet, last I checked, there was no evidence connecting Saddam to the WTC.
Osama, maybe.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Saddam bombed the WTC?
Saddam?
ummm... which fantasy world was that?
on this planet, last I checked, there was no evidence connecting Saddam to the WTC.
Osama, maybe.
I guess the former CIA director and the current Deputy Defense Secretary, among others, don't know what they're talking about. So perhaps you should direct that asinine question to them.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
I guess the former CIA director and the current Deputy Defense Secretary, among others, don't know what they're talking about. So perhaps you should direct that asinine question to them.
Perhaps you could link to a site that has them declaring that Saddam had anything to do with the 93 WTC bombings . . . .
and perhaps we should let the guy that was about to go to court the day after 9/11 out as he was linked to the afore mentioned blind cleric {who's name escapes me right now) and therefor was innocent . . . hunh?!
or, perhaps you are about 13 and don't know what you are talking about . . . .
Originally posted by Blue Shift
So perhaps you should direct that asinine question to them.
Well the former CIA director and the current Deputy Defense Secretary haven't made the claim, YOU have. Perhaps YOU should answer than question directly?
Originally posted by pfflam
Perhaps you could link to a site that has them declaring that Saddam had anything to do with the 93 WTC bombings . . . .
and perhaps we should let the guy that was about to go to court the day after 9/11 out as he was linked to the afore mentioned blind cleric {who's name escapes me right now) and therefor was innocent . . . hunh?!
or, perhaps you are about 13 and don't know what you are talking about . . . .
Don't be so lazy.
Just Google: Woolsey + Saddam + WTC
Originally posted by bunge
Well the former CIA director and the current Deputy Defense Secretary haven't made the claim, YOU have. Perhaps YOU should answer than question directly?
*yawn*
WASHINGTON ? U.S. intelligence services unanimously agreed last fall that "no specific intelligence information" tied Iraq to U.S. terrorist attacks, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Originally posted by pfflam
its funny, I googled like you said, just to humor you . . . and I keep coming up with statements like the fllowing . . . in every page!!
Why not humor me just a little more and actually read the whole article(s).