Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

MSNBC: Bush calls for halt to Swift Boat vets' ads


jbooma

Recommended Posts

That was part of my point that why are we going after someone with three year old inteligence that the former president did not feel was worthy of war. If it is a danger issue let me tell you N. Korea would be better qualified in my opinion being that they already have nuclear devices

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bucaro

That was part of my point that why are we going after someone with three year old inteligence that the former president did not feel was worthy of war. If it is a danger issue let me tell you N. Korea would be better qualified in my opinion being that they already have nuclear devices

I might be wrong but I thought Clinton said that he should have done more and Bush was right doing what he did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dickens

It's perfectly fine for Swift Boats Vets to run their ads, as it is fine for MoveOn to run their ads. The First Amendment was created to protect speech most importantly political speech. If the ads are inaccurate then that's for those in the media and those of us watching them to decide.

I agree 100%... However, IMO, if Bush or Kerry is sponsoring ads that are not true, then I have no respect for that.

I don't like negative ads to begin with. Both of them are just piss poor candidates and it's sad that they are all we really have to choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bucaro

Joint Chiefs clearence is behind the President and Clinton was a civilian. He had access to no more recent information than you or me. Do you not find it alarming who got the first oil contract, or what has recently happened in Venezuela (the poling of Ven. citizens in the US) or how he tied the war to Al Queda in part. This has been an obvious goal for Bush from day one. There is no hard proof either way so the argument will forever continue

Prove it.

If you can find authentic documentation on security clearances after 9/11, I will be impressed. I am not calling you out, but since you claim to know this as fact, I am interested and would like to see.

It is impossible to sift through all the BS documents and changes in security clearances to find such documentation on the interent IMO. I gave up after 5 minutes of seeing huge amounts of BS....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dickens

It's perfectly fine for Swift Boats Vets to run their ads, as it is fine for MoveOn to run their ads. The First Amendment was created to protect speech most importantly political speech. If the ads are inaccurate then that's for those in the media and those of us watching them to decide.

If in fact the swifties have slandered Kerry,

there is such a thing as civil court , since the Cambodia thing has turned out to be a big lie...it will be very hard to prove anything either way it is he said she said.. the best thing Kerry can do is sign the 180 and let everyone see his records instead of the **** and Bull they have posted on line that is completely ambiguous and difficult for anyone to figure out who produced it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SkinsHokie Fan

Bucaro you have dug yourself quite the hole here.

Not only was it Bush using this intel (you think he just made it up in 1.5 years into his presidencey) Blair was using it, Putin was, Clinton and Gore both were as were every other intel service in the world.

If Bush lied so did everyone else. But he didn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Executive privalige clause of the constitution you should be able to find that. That is the reason for situation room in the bottom of the white house (bomb proof) which can only be used for people with Top Clearence credentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is whether Bush knew the information was faulty or not! The woodward book should prove that he knew that from his interviews with the President. Also Bush has now said "he would have gone anyway" so what to say about that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by codeorama

Wow... I had no idea that having a few people disagree with a war was more mentally damaging than the stress of being shot at and having to kill, less you be killed, along with the chemicals used, experiments etc...

My boss who was nearly killed in Nam always says it was much worse to hear Fonda's comments than it was to have a bayonnet stuck in him...

the post viet nam era was an embarrasment in that the political left in it's arrogance spit on the American Soldier

instead of applauding his safe return.

Ever seen a Rambo movie? They treat J.

Rambo like crap and a dog and he winds up going evil on some Tenn. town..all from the same disrespect.

The disgusting thing is these 24 yr. old know it alls that didn't see the way Kerry with his smug BS infliction of his words trying to sound Kennedyesque trashing the Vets. He is lieing now saying he was against Nixon..but that is not true..The McCarthy's and Humphrey wing of the Democrat party was exactly how I reference the left..and Kerry was grandstanding to be a darling of their

click.

You ask anyone that was there...Kerry was a fraud that used them then in an opportunistic way and is calling them liars today. He has minions of stooges like that other guy that needs to read

real history..like Col. Hackworth instead of relying on Wolf Blitzer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have posted the below numerous times and usually it is ignored by those that call Bush a liar regarding WMD in Iraq.

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, June 27, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: There have been a lot of second-guessing of the war by Democrats, Madam Secretary. But this is the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. And here's the language: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..." Passed by Congress, signed by President Clinton. And here's President Clinton in December 16 of 1998.

(Videotape, February 17, 1998):

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost his will--its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.

(End videotape)

Pretty strong statement by the President, huh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything we have done follows the policies of a memo by William Kristal which maps out everything we have done for the "Democratization of the middle east " which came out before he took office. READ IT (docturine of preemption)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kilmer17

The Woodward book says specifically that the President asked Tenet if the CIA was certain Saddam had WMDs. Tenet answered "Mr President, it's a SLAM DUNK".

Ever read the Woodward book where he obtained a deathbed confession from

Reagan's CIA director Wm. Casey..solving the Iran Contra episode..Casey was never near Woodward...yet the inventor of deepthroat gets not one story of a lifetime that will never be disputed..but two..and deepthroat's identity won't be told until his death...that is Disneyesque..a fairy tale

I cannot believe that Geo. Tenant ever said such a thing to Woodward..but I bet he said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The disgusting thing is these 24 yr. old know it alls that didn't see the way Kerry with his smug BS infliction of his words trying to sound Kennedyesque trashing the Vets. He is lieing now saying he was against Nixon..but that is not true..The McCarthy's and Humphrey wing of the Democrat party was exactly how I reference the left..and Kerry was grandstanding to be a darling of their

click.

[/b]

Shortly after serving in Vietnam, Kerry gave speeches in Washington protesting our reasoning for fighting the war.

He was so revered, that Richard Nixon was noted to keep him on his 'watch list' and made numerous references to John Kerry during his presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinsLegacy44

Shortly after serving in Vietnam, Kerry gave speeches in Washington protesting our reasoning for fighting the war.

He was so revered, that Richard Nixon was noted to keep him on his 'watch list' and made numerous references to John Kerry during his presidency.

wow Nixon...everyone cower in fear...his watchlist..Nixon was a proud guy when it came to the troops...he got them out of a mess that his predecessor got them into protecting the financial interests of some other influential Texans...it is amazing to see the influence that the left has had on these younger people...Nixon is the aerch angel because of watergate and Kerry a hero after trashing our own troops...

Nixon did some stupid things, but all Presidents make mistakes and all he did was the status quo up until the Dems decided they wanted the Whitehouse back

and they are at it again..with their self promoting selfish interests.at any cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bucaro

Tenet did not say it to Woodward that is a recount of Bush's words.

again if the shoe fits, Woodward will wear it..the icon creator of history...three months before Watergate he was on the staff of the Montgomery Co. Sentinel writing such subjective slam articles like

"Rating the County's Principals"..like he had a voice in deciding which schools were good and which were bad...he was a small fish that wanted to be a whale...he is a liar..or at least the writer of fiction...but what do you want for a mindset that holds Seymour Hirsch up as creditable journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by roofgoat

I have posted the below numerous times and usually it is ignored by those that call Bush a liar regarding WMD in Iraq.

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, June 27, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: There have been a lot of second-guessing of the war by Democrats, Madam Secretary. But this is the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. And here's the language: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..." Passed by Congress, signed by President Clinton. And here's President Clinton in December 16 of 1998.

(Videotape, February 17, 1998):

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost his will--its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.

(End videotape)

Pretty strong statement by the President, huh

Awesome...anyone that maintains that rebuked point of view only needs to locate Clinton's 1997 Veteran's Day speech

at Arlington where he outlines his reasons and why he thinks an invaision of Iraq is the right thing to do...but the left has to have it any way they want it..because they are without a voice in what happens unless they lie and construct a venue to co-opt .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bucaro

Do you notice who was not in that group...Powell who was curiously kept out of these meeting. The only one with a service history (5 star general)

You are curious? Ever think perhaps there is pressing State Dept. issues he is attending to?.he is busy trying to come up with a solution to the Sudan...but that is too easy.

Do you think that press conference was because Kerry said sit up and speak?

You read into things that you think have meaning. The State Dept. has little to do

with national security..they are the Diplomatic end of things...but of course you people say because Chirac is out a hundred billion and Germany was going through an election..that we don't have a foreign service position in the world..

This world does not revolve around Kerry or the petty issues that bother either of you. As long as Bush is Pres. he will be busy with what goes on in this world...be it Terror or ethnic cleansing...but that was too easy to post...Bush's opponent loses his gourd

over a secret service agent during a ski trip or has to worry about the phony posture that has followed him.

what a joke you allude that Bush broke out the cabinet just to address Kerry's issues..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bucaro

Everything we have done follows the policies of a memo by William Kristal which maps out everything we have done for the "Democratization of the middle east " which came out before he took office. READ IT (docturine of preemption)

and so what? Norman Scwhartzkoph came to prominence as a General because he wrote the battle plan that liberated Kuaitt

years before it was needed and was rewarded by Bush Sr. with the job of prosecuting the war.

Again...the colloquial weakness in your rant is textbook...do some reading into how the military works too.

But that is the way..demonize the

forethought..there are hundreds of options..liberation strategies on file...they have a course in the Academy that does

just that...invaision strategies...but then again the left in it's scorn for war...they love to start them then blame whoever when they cannot adequately take care of things they get themselves into.

Trouble with Kerry ...he will defer to foreign interest...just like he has by insisting on foreign moderators watching our polls like a third world dictatorship...are you proud of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Duckus

Some of you posters are straight a**holes to one another. Show some respect to one another (sometimes I get heated too). Some of you people on this board are so pompous that you attack other people and cannot understand how people are going to have different opinions than your own (seen it in both sides arguing). People are going to have very different ideas and views on the world and disagreeing is great, but keep if civil because when I read a bunch of 30-50 year old yelling at each other online it looks sad. Me and my friends who are only 20 have much more civil arguments here at college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...