Kerry Way Over The Top!!

[Ravens777]

Kerry is out of line, he wants to paint blame on Bush for what a few soldiers have done in Iraq. He is asking Bush for an apology for the mistakes of a few bad apples. I can see it now, if Bush does that, Kerry then would launch a massive media event and cast Bush as if he was over there doing it himself. This mans talks out of both sides of his mouth on every issue.

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said Wednesday that the Bush administration's response to abuse of Iraqi prisoners by some U.S. soldiers has been "slow and inappropriate."

AP Photo

AP Photo

Slideshow: John Kerry

Latest headlines:

· RNC Hopes Gala Will Net Record Donations

AP - Thu May 6, 3:37 AM ET

· Kerry Calls for Higher Teacher Standards

AP - Thu May 6, 3:34 AM ET

· 1970s FBI File Pegs Kerry As Moderate

AP - Thu May 6, 3:31 AM ET

"I think the world needs to hear from the president that the United States of America regrets any kind of abuse of this kind or any kind of effort like this," Kerry said at his first news conference in three weeks. "Because we have to show the world that we're willing to correct our own mistakes."

The Massachusetts senator spoke to reporters on the same day that Bush told television stations broadcast to the Arab world that the treatment of Iraqi prisoners was "abhorrent" but stopped short of apologizing.

Bush said there will be investigations and individuals will be brought to justice. Kerry echoed the call for an investigation and declined to say that an apology is needed pending the outcome.

"The president of the United States needs to offer the world an explanation and needs to take appropriate responsibility," he said. "And if that includes apologizing for the behavior of those soldiers and what happened, then we ought to do that."

Photographs of U.S. soldiers gloating over naked detainees in demeaning positions have been broadcast around the world and sparked anger and protests in Arab countries. Kerry said the abuse has been a disservice to U.S. troops and could put them in further jeopardy of a terrorist attacks.

"The horrifying abuse of Iraqi prisoners which the world has now seen is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable," he said. "And the response of the administration, certainly the Pentagon (news - web sites), has been slow and inappropriate. I believe the president needs to guarantee that the world is going to have an explanation."

Kerry singled out Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, for failing to act earlier on the abuse allegations.

"I want to know, as I think Americans do, is this isolated? Does it go up the chain of command? Who knew what when?" Kerry said. "All of those questions have to be answered, so I don't want to shoot from the hip on that."

Kerry spoke to reporters in the midst of a three-day education tour with stops in Minnesota, New Mexico and California. The Kerry campaign, lagging behind Bush on the ground game, is just beginning to bolster its state operations, sending 68 organizers to 14 states this week.

Kerry celebrated Cinco de Mayo — one of Mexico's most important national holidays — at Woodrow Wilson High School, where he criticized Bush's education policies. He sprinkled his remarks with the Spanish that he's been learning on cassette tapes.

Bush "promised in the No Child Left Behind Act that billions of dollars would be coming to America. El rompio las promesas," Kerry said, then translated. "He broke his promises to America."

Kerry honored the troops serving in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites).

"We pray that the next Cinco de Mayo, they will celebrate here in the streets of the United States of America," he said.

Kerry also was meeting privately with Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony. Kerry, a Roman Catholic who has faced some criticism from church leaders for his support of abortion rights, would not answer questions about what he would discuss with the cardinal.

[codeorama]

He's right about the No child left behind. Bush screwed everyone with that.

[Ravens777]

Originally posted by codeorama

He's right about the No child left behind. Bush screwed everyone with that.

I agree but take in to account everything he has had to deal with since 911 and magically things clear up as to why he didn't fulfill that one

[aREDSKIN]

Shouldn't Kerry resign since he's already admitted to personally committing "atrocities" himself? Hmmm

[Ravens777]

Originally posted by aREDSKIN

Shouldn't Kerry resign since he's already admitted to personally committing "atrocities" himself? Hmmm

I would sleep better if he did....

[mark327]

Originally posted by Ravens777

I would sleep better if he did....

really, you would sleep better!!!! bush is the one who got us into this mess to begin with . this is nothing but a vendetta for his daddy from the last war in iraq that his administration didn't finish when they had the chance.

terrorism needs to be dealt with i will be first to agree with this with anyone ,but we have bin laden still loose in afganistan

that this admin. said they would have in a year after 9-11 .

that hasn't happened !!! we had to go into iraq right ,WRONG!!!

i'd sleep much better at night if i knew we had bin laden in custody . iraq was not going to attack us but bin laden still can!

note to everyone : i know some will start yelling how clinton missed his opportunity , he had chances and blew it , so lets not go there it is well documented.

every war has it's atrocities , thats war ,plain and simple . the press is running with this much farther then they need to , so it's not going away ,by no means. so this administration will have to stand up and take the lumps that it is going to recieve and prey that this war ( and it is a war ) will end soon. i donot see that happening but i prey as most all americans do that it does.

what i see is that will wil be in iraq for years to come and that is the true astrocity here .

[Kilmer17]

If anyone knows about mistreating enemy soldiers, it's Kerry. He's the expert on it. Let him say what he wants. Everytime he opens his mouth, Bush gets more votes.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by mark327

really, you would sleep better!!!! bush is the one who got us into this mess to begin with . this is nothing but a vendetta for his daddy from the last war in iraq that his administration didn't finish when they had the chance.

terrorism needs to be dealt with i will be first to agree with this with anyone ,but we have bin laden still loose in afganistan

that this admin. said they would have in a year after 9-11 .

that hasn't happened !!! we had to go into iraq right ,WRONG!!!

i'd sleep much better at night if i knew we had bin laden in custody . iraq was not going to attack us but bin laden still can!

What you ignore is: Iraq's KNOWN links to other terrorist groups, the MANY indications he had ties to AQ that were steadily growing, the training camp for hijackers in Iraq (the only known one in the world with an airliner fuselage that could be used for practice) http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56251&highlight=Salmon+Pak , Saddam's hatred for America, the FACT that he had ties to the first world trade center bombing and the FACT that the planned assasination of ANY sitting, former or potential president of the United States is an act of war. I REALLY hate Clinton, but if a foreign nation were to attempt his assasination, IT WOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR, AND IT'S GO TIME. If you cant see the danger that Iraq posed you are blind. Saddam may not be an islamic terrorist but he sure as hell had no problem supporting them and using them and he would have NO PROBLEM with helping them to attack us.

You want WMD? Look to Syria because that's where they were probably sent. And it is a fact that there is one less WMD program in the middle east right now because Gaddafi began negotiations days before we invaded Iraq and THE DAY AFTER WE CAUGHT SADDAM, Gaddafi gave up his program. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?

And do you honestly believe that the capture or death of Bin Laden will end the threat of Al Quada or the many other Islamic terrorist groups? Is that what you think? Do you think that if we would just be nice and leave them alone they would go away? Can you really be so nieve?

People like you scare me. You want to Know why Bush is so aggressive? Read the Al Quada training manual...

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

The confrontation that Islam calls for does not know Socratic debates, Platonicideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialog of bullets, thie ideals of assasination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun.

Still think that "this is nothing but a vendetta for his daddy from the last war in iraq"?

[mark327]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

What you ignore is: Iraq's KNOWN links to other terrorist groups, the MANY indications he had ties to AQ that were steadily growing, the training camp for hijackers in Iraq (the only known one in the world with an airliner fuselage that could be used for practice) http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56251&highlight=Salmon+Pak , Saddam's hatred for America, the FACT that he had ties to the first world trade center bombing and the FACT that the planned assasination of ANY sitting, former or potential president of the United States is an act of war. I REALLY hate Clinton, but if a foreign nation were to attempt his assasination, IT WOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR, AND IT'S GO TIME. If you cant see the danger that Iraq posed you are blind. Saddam may not be an islamic terrorist but he sure as hell had no problem supporting them and using them and he would have NO PROBLEM with helping them to attack us.

You want WMD? Look to Syria because that's where they were probably sent. And it is a fact that there is one less WMD program in the middle east right now because Gaddafi began negotiations days before we invaded Iraq and THE DAY AFTER WE CAUGHT SADDAM, Gaddafi gave up his program. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?

And do you honestly believe that the capture or death of Bin Laden will end the threat of Al Quada or the many other Islamic

terrorist groups? Is that what you think? Do you think that if we

would just be nice and leave them alone they would go away? Can you really be so nieve?

People like you scare me. You want to Know why Bush is so aggressive? Read the Al Quada training manual...

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Still think that "this is nothing but a vendetta for his daddy from the last war in iraq"? [/quote

no mike

i'm not ignoring the fact that saddam is linked to terrorism.

i've read everything thats printed in the papers , watch the news , you may not believe this but i am as american as anyone on this site or this country. but i do believe that even though we are the lone super power in the world that we ( the U.S.) should not try and police every little place that is in trouble . if it 's not a direct danger to this country then we should have waited before we invaded iraq. we have unfinished bussiness in afganistan. there was not a well thought out plan for iraq and that is clear to everyone with any sense. please do not take that in the wrong way . this is not view of you . we are all entitled to an opinion and i think that there was not enough planning put into this war. this isn't the 1991 , when we could have rolled into bagdad and finish it once and for all. i supported and thought that it should of been done then . but that is hindsight and history .

look mike like i said i'm not dening any of the dangers this country faces. they are real but we are spreading ourselves to thin IMO . ask yourself this one question ? when was the last time the U.S.A. finished a war that we were involved in.

this war in iraq was declared over by mr. bush in what march!

more dead american soldiers in the month of april of 2004 then in one year of war . that is something i know everyone is fustrated about . when is the end ? this war is now world wide muslim's against the democratic society ,the western world. oh and mike do I really scare you that much???

:laugh:

[Burgold]

Honestly, I think it wouldn't hurt Bush to apologize. He is the symbol of the United States right now and the United States in the case of these soldiers acted poorly. It's like a father apologizing for the actions of his sons. Or a leader taking responsibility for those serving under him. It should not be too much for to say... I find these acts unconsionable (which he did) and I regret them. We will do better. On behalf of our soldiers I apologize for the embarrassment this has caused.

We are better than this and I would hazzard 99 percent of the military serving overseas are better than that. Bush seems incapable of taking responsibilities for the failures that occurred under him. In terms of CIA, FBI, millitary, etc. I don't quite get it.

[Kilmer17]

I heard an interesting point on Boortz. If you are the lawyer defending these dirbags, and the President apologizes for their actions, doesnt that hurt your case?

Point being, he should apologize. But he should do it AFTER they are found guilty (and I am certain they will be found guilty).

[codeorama]

I haven't really kept up with the ongoing saga. But Bush should apologize for the treatment and make a statement saying that it's unacceptable and those individuals are exceptions rather than the rule.

He's probably already said as much, if so, then that's the end of it.

The troops have to be punished to make sure others understand that it won't be tolerated.

Just my 2cents.

[KingJeremy]

Apologizing, however passively, implies ownership. If you apologize for something, you in some sense are putting yourself on the line.

I don't think it's fair to call these acts an extension of Bush's war, but they certainly don't help an increasingly unfavorable opinion toward it. Were Bush to apologize for these acts, then those responsible become an extension of Bush, rather than an aberration.

Jer

[Ravens777]

Originally posted by mark327

really, you would sleep better!!!! bush is the one who got us into this mess to begin with . this is nothing but a vendetta for his daddy from the last war in iraq that his administration didn't finish when they had the chance.

terrorism needs to be dealt with i will be first to agree with this with anyone ,but we have bin laden still loose in afganistan

that this admin. said they would have in a year after 9-11 .

that hasn't happened !!! we had to go into iraq right ,WRONG!!!

i'd sleep much better at night if i knew we had bin laden in custody . iraq was not going to attack us but bin laden still can!

note to everyone : i know some will start yelling how clinton missed his opportunity , he had chances and blew it , so lets not go there it is well documented.

every war has it's atrocities , thats war ,plain and simple . the press is running with this much farther then they need to , so it's not going away ,by no means. so this administration will have to stand up and take the lumps that it is going to recieve and prey that this war ( and it is a war ) will end soon. i donot see that happening but i prey as most all americans do that it does.

what i see is that will wil be in iraq for years to come and that is the true astrocity here .

Is the sky blue in your world? If you think Bush sent thousands of soldiers to war to settle a score for his daddy, you view life different than most Democrats & Republicans do. This charge is not even being made by the two mouthed Kerry, but I am sure after reading your post he will create a media blitz thinking it may help because at this point he needs all the help he can get.

Terrorism has to be dealt with that is true, but before I address that issue, lets talk about your “note to everyone”. Don’t lay blame on the current administration when the Clinton administration has not accepted blame for their part and then say we can’t talk about that in our argument. Now! Clinton was offered Bin Ladden and flat out turned the offer down for what? Who knows!! I have a good guess as to why but I wont go there. Getting back to your thought about how you could sleep much better, Bush has made many efforts on many different fronts to fights terrorism and yes even catch Bin Ladden so you can sleep better. Think about this, you would have been sleeping much better for years now if Clinton would have done ¼ of what Bush has been doing to fight terrorism.

Every war does have its atrocities it is widely reported now and news reaches the American people before I can drink a soda. Looking at how they hung people from a bridge and set them a fire and cut the head of a reporter off and filmed it, I can’t feel much pity for them. As a matter of fact, what have we seen, people piled in a group, standing on a milk crate or box with a bag of their head and group photos in the nude. Big deal when compared to what the Americans have been put through over there. I had a friend in the Desert Storm War that was killed, the Iraq soldiers cut his tongue out of his mouth and cut his private parts off and a few fingers. His mother was not allowed to view the body because of the atrocities that he endured. So ask me, is it wrong that the US has participated in such crimes, absolutely yes!! Do I think the media is running with a new bone, absolutely yes!! But really let it go it has been going on in every war known to mankind.

[Ravens777]

Originally posted by codeorama

I haven't really kept up with the ongoing saga. But Bush should apologize for the treatment and make a statement saying that it's unacceptable and those individuals are exceptions rather than the rule.

He's probably already said as much, if so, then that's the end of it.

The troops have to be punished to make sure others understand that it won't be tolerated.

Just my 2cents.

He did to a point......... watch the file tape from yesterday

[funnyperson1]

I don't see anything wrong with Bush apologizing, if he doesn't some others may misunderstand and think we tolerate this ****.

[Kilmer17]

Our swift action and punishment shows we dont tolerate it.

[Ravens777]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

What you ignore is: Iraq's KNOWN links to other terrorist groups, the MANY indications he had ties to AQ that were steadily growing, the training camp for hijackers in Iraq (the only known one in the world with an airliner fuselage that could be used for practice) http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56251&highlight=Salmon+Pak , Saddam's hatred for America, the FACT that he had ties to the first world trade center bombing and the FACT that the planned assasination of ANY sitting, former or potential president of the United States is an act of war. I REALLY hate Clinton, but if a foreign nation were to attempt his assasination, IT WOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR, AND IT'S GO TIME. If you cant see the danger that Iraq posed you are blind. Saddam may not be an islamic terrorist but he sure as hell had no problem supporting them and using them and he would have NO PROBLEM with helping them to attack us.

You want WMD? Look to Syria because that's where they were probably sent. And it is a fact that there is one less WMD program in the middle east right now because Gaddafi began negotiations days before we invaded Iraq and THE DAY AFTER WE CAUGHT SADDAM, Gaddafi gave up his program. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?

And do you honestly believe that the capture or death of Bin Laden will end the threat of Al Quada or the many other Islamic terrorist groups? Is that what you think? Do you think that if we would just be nice and leave them alone they would go away? Can you really be so nieve?

People like you scare me. You want to Know why Bush is so aggressive? Read the Al Quada training manual...

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Still think that "this is nothing but a vendetta for his daddy from the last war in iraq"?

Great post....... maybe some eyes will open

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

What you ignore is: Iraq's KNOWN links to other terrorist groups, the MANY indications he had ties to AQ that were steadily growing, the training camp for hijackers in Iraq (the only known one in the world with an airliner fuselage that could be used for practice) http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56251&highlight=Salmon+Pak , Saddam's hatred for America, the FACT that he had ties to the first world trade center bombing and the FACT that the planned assasination of ANY sitting, former or potential president of the United States is an act of war. I REALLY hate Clinton, but if a foreign nation were to attempt his assasination, IT WOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR, AND IT'S GO TIME. If you cant see the danger that Iraq posed you are blind. Saddam may not be an islamic terrorist but he sure as hell had no problem supporting them and using them and he would have NO PROBLEM with helping them to attack us.

You want WMD? Look to Syria because that's where they were probably sent. And it is a fact that there is one less WMD program in the middle east right now because Gaddafi began negotiations days before we invaded Iraq and THE DAY AFTER WE CAUGHT SADDAM, Gaddafi gave up his program. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?

And do you honestly believe that the capture or death of Bin Laden will end the threat of Al Quada or the many other Islamic terrorist groups? Is that what you think? Do you think that if we would just be nice and leave them alone they would go away? Can you really be so nieve?

People like you scare me. You want to Know why Bush is so aggressive? Read the Al Quada training manual...

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Still think that "this is nothing but a vendetta for his daddy from the last war in iraq"?

HA!!! I knew you'd bring this up again. Here's one of my posts to your "evidence" which doesn't exist. I made you look like an Iraqi prisoner of war and you come back for more, you REALLY never learn.

This was posted by me in the thread you linked.

It pretty much refutes your evidence, and poses your logic as false and circular, (since I can't prove it didn't exist, therefor it did.) Your good old logic, using an empty set as proof, I see you still haven't taken that online course as I suggested.

Originally posted by Mad Mike

You poor deluded soul.

The poor deluited one is you for coming back for another beating

I have said many times that I am describing a POSSIBLE conection. Spin it any way you like but you do not speak for me. If I say POSSIBLE CONECTION. I mean just that.

You have disproved nothing.

Oh, so when you started this thread . . .

Training for 9-11

And your post is

If you are going to train to take over four passenger aircraft at the same time for a mission that will take years of planning, you need a place to do it.

Before we invaded, there was only one place where terrorists could train on an actual aircraft.

The Salman Pak training camp in Iraq.

I'm supposed to jump to the suggestion that your thread is on a "Possible" connection between 9-11 and SH. Do you think it's "Possible" you changed your stance on the matter because you were proven wrong? No, that couldn't be it could it.

Salman Pak was the only place the 9/11 terrorists could have trained on an actual aircraft. We have confirmed reports that "The camp was for organisations based abroad" and that "The foreigners' training includes assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking." It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. It does however take a complete moron not to see the posible conection.

So let me get this straight. You have no proof that they were lying but because they were brought to our attention by somone who disliked Saddam you claim they are. Bzzzzzzzzt WRONG. Prove they were lying or concede that they MAY be telling the truth.

I never said they were lying, you presumed I thought that, when in fact I made no point one way or another. I mearly pointed out the fact that either these guys are lying, or Bush is. When Bush says

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks,"

And this is done AFTER the frontline interview!!! Can you come to the conclusion that someone is lying.??? You yourself said you believe these two Iraqi's therefor, you ARE presuming Bush is lying!!!

And lets get this straight once and for all. The burdon of proof is on you!!!! I'm not questioning the intellegence and saying it DID or DID NOT exist, I don't need proof!!! What part of this logic can you not understand??? YOU have to prove that it DID happen. Do you get this??? Just because you can't prove it, and I've already busted you on this one, doesn't mean that I have to prove that it DID or DID NOT happen!!! The meeting is pertenent to your argument, and your ONLY argument against it is that I can't prove that it DIDN'T exist, so it DID happen??? Take a logic course man, you really need to brush up on it if you really think this way.

This may come as some suprise to you but nations have been gathering intel on their enemys through defectors since the begining of time. Sometimes the intel is false, sometimes it is dead on. The point being that you cannot disprove the information the Iraqis provided simply because they disliked Saddam. You have to show facts. Now if you can produce a couple of Iraqis who say these men are lying about Salman Pak and some documents or other tangible proof to back them up you may have something. Untill then all you have done is post your nieve opinion.

No, I have use BUSH HIMSELF as my evidence!!!! You, on the otherhand, CHOOSE to believe two terrorists who DID want to OVERTHROW SH!!! No, no alterior motives here. And AGAIN, it's not up to me to prove they were or weren't lying, Bush has already discredited their claim!!!

As for why Bush does not use this you will have to ask him. I suspect he simply chose to bank on the idea that they would find the WMD and this information would be moot. I also suspect that eh does not want to engage in endless debates on the subject. As president, his overiding concern is the security of the United States and it simply would not be in our best interest to try to prove the unprovable.

So now, Bush has the smoking gun evidence, stories to corroberate his actions and he chooses not to release it because he's busy?!?!? You have got to be kidding me. Bush is taking a BEATING at the poles. If he had just ONE shred of evidence, ONE, he'd have it out in the press faster than you can think. Instead he's spending all his time discrediting people who are saying the OPPOSITE of what he posed before Congress, and the American public. So now Bush can't proove it ever happened, the FBI and CIA can't proove this ever happened and you can't proove it ever happened so therefor it did???

Proove it!! Oh yea, I forgot, you can't!!!

Therin lies the problem. For the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that the links are there and that Iraq helped AQ pull off 9/11. How do you prove it? There is no paper trail other than a few scatered mentions of contacts and meetings with no mention of agenda (this is back to reality - such written documentation does exist). You will never find a treaty with Saddam's and UBL's signature on it agreeing to attack the US. All you can ever hope for is circumstantial evidence. You on the other hand will be satisfied with nothing less than 8x10 glossies of Saddam and UBL exchanging spit.

So now, you've come to the realization that there is no proof, yet you rationalize it by saying "well what could we have anyway?" Yep, keep up the good work Mike, you're really doing yourself good on this one.

Which leads me back to your hypocracy. You, who will accept any inuendo that would suggest any incompitance or lie from Bush do not seem willing to apply the same level of distrust to Saddam. You suggest that the Iraqis who talked about Salman Pak were lying for their own self interest, and cannot admit that the UN, France, Germany, and Russia would manipulate world opinion against us for their own.

First, I didn't insinuate the Iraqis were lying for their own self gratification, I'm just pointing out a conflict of intrest. You know what a conflict of interest is don't you??? cough. . .Chaney. . . cough. . . Haliburton.. . cough. . .no bidcontract.

Actually, I'm using Bush's OWN WORDS!!!!! Let me repeat them

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks,"

What part of that don't you understand???

I must either conclude that your lazy eye skipped right past the word "possible" or my argument was so convincing that you determined such a connection exists.

Either way, the irrational nature of your "logic" shines through.

When you start a thread isinuating a 9-11 and Saddam connection, and you change your stance on the issues, try to swing it towards a favorable position by claiming it was Al Qaeda, and not 9-11 you're relating the things to, I'll call you out on it. As for your logic, you obviously need some help, so I did some legwork for you.

Here's an online logic course

http://www.thelogiccourse.com/bluestorm/

I'd suggest you take it, concentrate on the Topic 6, the truth tables section, you seem to be lacking in that area.

[mark327]

Originally posted by Ravens777

Is the sky blue in your world? If you think Bush sent thousands of soldiers to war to settle a score for his daddy, you view life different than most Democrats & Republicans do. This charge is not even being made by the two mouthed Kerry, but I am sure after reading your post he will create a media blitz thinking it may help because at this point he needs all the help he can get.

Terrorism has to be dealt with that is true, but before I address that issue, lets talk about your “note to everyone”. Don’t lay blame on the current administration when the Clinton administration has not accepted blame for their part and then say we can’t talk about that in our argument. Now! Clinton was offered Bin Ladden and flat out turned the offer down for what? Who knows!! I have a good guess as to why but I wont go there. Getting back to your thought about how you could sleep much better, Bush has made many efforts on many different fronts to fights terrorism and yes even catch Bin Ladden so you can sleep better. Think about this, you would have been sleeping much better for years now if Clinton would have done ¼ of what Bush has been doing to fight terrorism.

Every war does have its atrocities it is widely reported now and news reaches the American people before I can drink a soda. Looking at how they hung people from a bridge and set them a fire and cut the head of a reporter off and filmed it, I can’t feel much pity for them. As a matter of fact, what have we seen, people piled in a group, standing on a milk crate or box with a bag of their head and group photos in the nude. Big deal when compared to what the Americans have been put through over there. I had a friend in the Desert Storm War that was killed, the Iraq soldiers cut his tongue out of his mouth and cut his private parts off and a few fingers. His mother was not allowed to view the body because of the atrocities that he endured. So ask me, is it wrong that the US has participated in such crimes, absolutely yes!! Do I think the media is running with a new bone, absolutely yes!! But really let it go it has been going on in every war known to mankind.

is the sky blue were i'm at ? you bet it is. as i look out my window i see the prettiest blue sky , sun shining , it's breath taking , just wish i could go out and enjoy it. it's only living in this country that i can actually say that .

hey i'm not saying bush hasn't made progress on the war on terror . i'm saying to much to fast , lets finish one job at a time.

we pulled troops out of afganistan to start another only to say that the war in iraq is over and start bringing troops home from there to see our (U.S.) death toll rise in april of this year to the total of the entire so called end of the war this passed march!!

whats wrong with that picture?? where was the planning!!!

raven ,sorry to hear about your friend in desert storm . i really am .

i'd like to hear your thoughts or the reason clinton didn't respond to the wide open shot at bin laden while he was in office. i'm sure it would be something on the grounds of he and monica were busy at the time and the do not disturb sign was hung from the oral office door.

:doh:

[Ravens777]

Originally posted by mark327

is the sky blue were i'm at ? you bet it is. as i look out my window i see the prettiest blue sky , sun shining , it's breath taking , just wish i could go out and enjoy it. it's only living in this country that i can actually say that .

hey i'm not saying bush hasn't made progress on the war on terror . i'm saying to much to fast , lets finish one job at a time.

we pulled troops out of afganistan to start another only to say that the war in iraq is over and start bringing troops home from there to see our (U.S.) death toll rise in april of this year to the total of the entire so called end of the war this passed march!!

whats wrong with that picture?? where was the planning!!!

raven ,sorry to hear about your friend in desert storm . i really am .

i'd like to hear your thoughts or the reason clinton didn't respond to the wide open shot at bin laden while he was in office. i'm sure it would be something on the grounds of he and monica were busy at the time and the do not disturb sign was hung from the oral office door.

:doh:

The planning you ask? Just like any football game there is always a game plan but the minute the game or war starts things change and your plan changes to combat the enemy’s plan. If you ever played a sport on any level, you should understand that thought process.

As far as Bush saying the war is over, he indeed claim that major combat was over not the war is over. I will post proof of that at the end of this post.

As far as Clinton not accepting Bin Ladden, well I guess you would have to ask Billy that question. Do I think he will tell the real reason, nope! But you are correct about one thing, he did have things going on in the Oval Office not “Oral Office”, sorry but I take offense to the slander of any Part of this great nation’s White House. To many great things have been accomplished in that office to slander with such sour words.

Enjoy my news post that proves your claim that Bush claimed the war was over isWRONG.

Thanks for the note on my friend, this is a war where in all accounts, I don’t think there will ever be a clear victory for anyone.

Bush: 'Mission Accomplished' Was a Typo

President Bush blames the typo on terrorists and says the banner should have read: 'Still Difficult Work Ahead'WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Andy Borowitz

Newsweek

Updated: 4:40 p.m. ET May 04, 2004May 4 - One year after George W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to celebrate the end of the major combat phase in Iraq, the president used his weekly radio address to say that the "Mission Accomplished" banner onboard the carrier was the result of "a typo."

advertisement

"That banner was not supposed to say 'Mission Accomplished'," Bush said. "It was supposed to say 'Still Difficult Work Ahead'."

Bush said that he did not notice the typo at the time, and only caught it one year later while watching a news report marking the anniversary.

But the president surprised many observers by refusing to apologize for the typo, instead calling it the work of "evildoers."

[codeorama]

Those of you saying Bush can't apologize because that's like admitting to something obviously haven't worked in the real world.

I have to apologize for stupid mistakes that my staff makes and I have to repremand them. That doesn't mean that I want them to make those mistakes or that I condone them in any way. What it means is that some people screw up and the boss has to save face for the rest of the organization and make sure the "consumer" understands that what ever it was, DOESN'T normally take place and isn't acceptable.

Regardless of what party you support, we can all agree that troops abusing POW's is wrong and the vast majority of our troops would never do that. There's always that 1% that screw up and ruin it for everyone else.

[mark327]

Originally posted by Ravens777

The planning you ask? Just like any football game there is always a game plan but the minute the game or war starts things change and your plan changes to combat the enemy’s plan. If you ever played a sport on any level, you should understand that thought process.

As far as Bush saying the war is over, he indeed claim that major combat was over not the war is over. I will post proof of that at the end of this post.

As far as Clinton not accepting Bin Ladden, well I guess you would have to ask Billy that question. Do I think he will tell the real reason, nope! But you are correct about one thing, he did have things going on in the Oval Office not “Oral Office”, sorry but I take offense to the slander of any Part of this great nation’s White House. To many great things have been accomplished in that office to slander with such sour words.

Enjoy my news post that proves your claim that Bush claimed the war was over isWRONG.

Thanks for the note on my friend, this is a war where in all accounts, I don’t think there will ever be a clear victory for anyone.

Bush: 'Mission Accomplished' Was a Typo

President Bush blames the typo on terrorists and says the banner should have read: 'Still Difficult Work Ahead'WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Andy Borowitz

Newsweek

Updated: 4:40 p.m. ET May 04, 2004May 4 - One year after George W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to celebrate the end of the major combat phase in Iraq, the president used his weekly radio address to say that the "Mission Accomplished" banner onboard the carrier was the result of "a typo."

advertisement

"That banner was not supposed to say 'Mission Accomplished'," Bush said. "It was supposed to say 'Still Difficult Work Ahead'."

Bush said that he did not notice the typo at the time, and only caught it one year later while watching a news report marking the anniversary.

But the president surprised many observers by refusing to apologize for the typo, instead calling it the work of "evildoers."

oh i'm sorry , you are comparing war to a game !!! i'm sorry that doesn't float with me.

for your info i played sports until i was in my early 30'S

and i never compared it to war , ever !!!

" mission accomplished " please did you read what you posted there. TYPO !!! bush realized one year later!!!

this is our president !!!! i'm glad you put that in this post .

another intelligent repubican statement , i love it !!!

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Ravens777

The planning you ask? Just like any football game there is always a game plan but the minute the game or war starts things change and your plan changes to combat the enemy’s plan. If you ever played a sport on any level, you should understand that thought process.

Yea, it looks like Bush had a game plan. Go into Baghdad, take over a third world country unprovoked, proclaim victory and enjoy the spoils of war. Give unbidded contracts to your biggest campaign doners and proclaim "Mission Accomplished"

As far as Bush saying the war is over, he indeed claim that major combat was over not the war is over. I will post proof of that at the end of this post.

Well, was he talking about the war in Iraq or the war on terror?because they ARE two different things, just in case you didn't know. Here is his quote:

My fellow Americans," Bush intoned May 1, 2003. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Our Major combat operations are over, our allies have prevailed. . . Sounds like a victory speach to me. Why else did he spend over $1million of taxpayers money to fly on a carrier??? Just about then he was handing over the Haliburton and Bechtal contracts to his buddies, unbidded mind you.

Enjoy my news post that proves your claim that Bush claimed the war was over isWRONG.

Bush: 'Mission Accomplished' Was a Typo

President Bush blames the typo on terrorists and says the banner should have read: 'Still Difficult Work Ahead'WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Andy Borowitz

Newsweek

Updated: 4:40 p.m. ET May 04, 2004May 4 - One year after George W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to celebrate the end of the major combat phase in Iraq, the president used his weekly radio address to say that the "Mission Accomplished" banner onboard the carrier was the result of "a typo."

"That banner was not supposed to say 'Mission Accomplished'," Bush said. "It was supposed to say 'Still Difficult Work Ahead'."

Bush said that he did not notice the typo at the time, and only caught it one year later while watching a news report marking the anniversary.

But the president surprised many observers by refusing to apologize for the typo, instead calling it the work of "evildoers."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Do you actually read your posts? You just posted something which makes Bush look like an absolute baffoon:doh1:

You give the mentally challanged a bad name.

[Ravens777]

Originally posted by mark327

oh i'm sorry , you are comparing war to a game !!! i'm sorry that doesn't float with me.

for your info i played sports until i was in my early 30'S

and i never compared it to war , ever !!!

" mission accomplished " please did you read what you posted there. TYPO !!! bush realized one year later!!!

this is our president !!!! i'm glad you put that in this post .

another intelligent repubican statement , i love it !!!

Boy we are touchy, you said the war was not planned I used a football analogy to show you the process of plans and how long they last. Don’t try to make something out of nothing, in all of my posts its clear that I don’t think war is a game. After losing a close friend I am the last one that would look at war as a game. I was explaining it in a way I thought you would understand, nothing more.

As far as my proof, the article. I posted it to refute your post claiming Bush said the WAR IS OVER when in fact he said it was the end of major combat. That was said because the US had claimed complete control of Iraq as far as military presence and the fact that S. H. had been over thrown. Not one time did Bush claim the war was over and we won and everyone was headed home. When you go to war and the opposing government is ousted that can be labeled as a major accomplished and the end of major combat. Why would anyone think that meant the war was over................ Hope this helps