This is all your own speculation. Most Iraqis are gratefull for what we have done...maybe the few the NYT talks to are not but hey, why would the NYT portray something positive for the Bush administration? You have even quoted facts of mine, dumbass, that support my arguments...and you talk about our case being 100% speculative...look at your own. It has so many holes it is sinking faster that the Titanic.

:bs: I hate to disapoint you but the NYT has these things called reporters that report on what is happening and then write about it, which is then edited. All of that injects liberal bias. And 99.9% of the time the NYT is reporting directly from their sources...not someone elses. Stop lying!!

And please stop being so ****ing blind. Clinton lied! He blatantly lied! He got infront of the American people, waved his finger, and lied again!! He knew all along he was lying. I don't care if he got a BJ or not...but the fact was it was a stupid BJ he lied about...if he lies about a BJ what else is he lying about?

There are currently, right now, this very moment, this exact instant, WMD that are missing in Iraq. That in and of itself was a reason to go to war...that is why we went to war...that is why war is justified. Like I laid out in another post there are two places that those WMD are. 1) Still in Iraq. or 2) Given to another nation or terrorist group. If #1 is proven true all the anti-war critics can please shut the **** up. If #2 is proven true it will be because of all the opposition that multilateralism at the UN has caused prevented us from going in and getting those weapons before they could have been given away.

Now those are facts. Twist them or try and discredit them as you wish, it is a typical liberal tactic, but it is the truth.

And to answer your question in bold...WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT, Investigating a blow job or investigated terrorists in flight schools?...we need to understand when this took place. BUSH WAS NOT IN OFFICE WHEN CLINTON WAS BEING INVESTIGATED! You cannot blame Bush for something that took place whaile he was still a governor. So I ask you...why was Clinton not investigating Al Quada and terrorists? Was it because he was too busy thinking up his next lie to the American people? Was he too busy turning down the Sudanese government when they handed Osama Bin Laden to the US on a silver platter?

You mentioned Clinton launched some cruise missles into Afghanistan in a previous post. Pretty interesting how when the heat was turning up on the BJ thing he used the military to divert attention away so he could launch missles at a couple of tents and a camel.

Bush is cleaning up the mess that Clinton handed to him and democrats and liberals alike are upset he is doing a good job, the AMerican public supports him, and his approval ratings remain high. So what to they do..try and discredit everything.

 

Whoa ... I'm not on here for 1 day and look at all this posting?!

Even if they DID find WMD .. I'd believe that as much as I believed Dubya's speech about how the American economy is strong again (you remember the boxes that said "Made in China"?).

The war was wrong, I hope Bush does more than NOT get re-elected, I hope he gets impeached, and I hope he gets convicted of war crimes, and convicted of crimes with his oil friends.

 

Not going to happen. History is going to regard Bush as one of our best Presidents ever...you wait and see.

 

I think he'll be held in the same esteen as Reagan...many hated Ronny in his time, too. But like Bush, he set a clear agenda and pursued it to its limits. I have tons of respect for each man.

 

I'm not sure whether I like or dislike Bush. I'm thinking this is better for liking him just because he's conservative, or disliking him just because he's not liberal. :dunno:

 

Congradulations captain obvious...of course my last post was my opinion/ speculation, but its common sense. If you didn't have running water, electricity, food, a job, or security would you be very happy with the people who took all of this away from you? Those things are not liberal bias, its fact that conditions in Iraq are worse now than they were before the war. If you can't tell the difference between true information and opinion then you need to go back to school. But, lets suppose your right. Maybe the Media is liberal (i don't believe it is, but lets say it is), so where is the "REAL" information you speak of. Why don't you show us this "real, true" information you talk so much about? Is there no real source of accurate information in this country? What about foreign media outlets? Do their stories have American political bias? When it comes to news that effects americans, of course not, it wouldn't help them try to persuade any of the people who read it, and it would be pointless for it to do so, because it doesn't effect the majority of the people who read it. If my case has so many holes in it why don't you point them out for us. You don't do anything but critisize it because you don't bother looking into it. If we're so wrong about this then try to enlighten us with some FACTS.

What facts of yours did i quote? I don't remember doing this, so please point them out. And I fail to see how I'm lying. I invited you to check my info, so instead of being ignorant why don't you do it. Ohhhh its cause your afraid your wrong...like all the other americans who support this bull shit war...all afraid of the "evil thats gonna get us." Ohh but i forgot....Americans are never wrong.....like in Vietnam...we were 100% right with that one, or how about when Clinton bombed the factory that turned out to making aspirin? I believe i said it before, i'm not saying all liberals are right and all conservatives are wrong. But if we don't recognize our mistakes then we're stupid and ignorant. Did i ever...EVER say even once that Clinton didn't lie? No, so why are you still trying to argue that angle with me. He lied. I have no problem saying it, i never said he didn't. So i guess that means my sight is perfectly fine. You said
so why was is such a big deal? He never would have had to lie about it if he wasn't investigated for it....and you didn't care, most of america really didn't care....but its when he LIED that makes it a big deal. DAMN...he was the first president to blatantly lie about something....and a BLOW JOB OF ALL THINGS...OH MY!!!!

I'll barrow 18secferio's words on this one..."WHERE ARE THEY?" How do you know so fully that there are weapons there?

You seem a bit confused.
FACT - n: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened

See...now that is a FACT.

Now that we have that cleared up...show me where your "facts" are. How about adding a #3. The weapons were destroyed. Thats not a possibility? #2 as i pointed out...is EXTREMELY unlikely to be in the hands of terrorists...MANY nations intelligence agencies would have been monitoring Iraq so closely (even while we were dealing with the UN) that a tranfer of this magnitude could never have taken place without intelligence picking it up. If the terrorists do have the weapons why have they not used them on israel yet? I mean shit they have as Colin Powell put it at LEAST 100 tons of these weapons. I'm sure they'd be willing to spare a chemical or biological weapon to use on their arch enemy Israel. BTW...if weapons are found...i'll be happy to shut the **** up about the WMD issue...but i won't shut the **** up for the reason for war, because Iraq was NOT a threat.

I see you again conveniently forgot to answer the question. Did i ever blame the BUSH adminstration for the terrorists being able to carry out 9/11? No, i simply asked the question of what was a more important investigation. Now...answer the question and cut the BS.

This paragraph will respond to the the last 2 quotes. A few things you a.) didn't know about or b.) forgot about. Until 1994 when al queda was involved in bombing the U.S Embasies in Israel, Manila, and a few other Asian Capitals, al queda was not considered a major threat to americans safety. We also did not fear terrorism the we do now. Clinton was investigating al queda, and its not like Sudan just offered osama up and he refused it. Seems you forgot that in 1995, the year before those talks were even held, al queda tried killing Clinton during a visit to the Philippines. We were in talks with Sudan, the talks were a failure. Tell me Clinton just refused, or clumsily failed to bring justice the that man who was responsible in trying to kill him. Tell me that Clinton didn't try killing him again after the Cole was attacked. That he just launched those missles to get your mind off the blow job....All of you conservatives would be going nucking futs if he hadn't done anything after the cole attack. But, once Bush got in office (after we knew al queda was a serious threat to americans abroad) the bush administation limited the investigation into al queda. How can you justify that? You accuse me of twisting information but you conveniently failed to mention any of that.

I don't believe Clinton handed him this mess...its just the cards he was dealt. They wouldn't be upset if he was doing a good job or they would support him. They are upset because he's NOT doing a good job. You say the American public supports him and his approval rating are high...where are you getting these numbers from? Most of the media when giving polls about his approval give them on the internet. Its extremely easy for these numbers to be inaccurate and even easier for the media to change those numbers. See what i think is strange was before the war started, Many polls said the majority of americans supported the war with UN support. In other polls the majority of Americans favored letting Saddam off the hook if weapons were found and he agreed to destroy them under UN supervision. Other polls suggested the majority of americans opposed going to war if no weapons were found. But all the sudden, when the war started without UN support, without a large international alliance, without finding weapons of mass destruction the support for war jumped to over 70%. Now can you please explain to me how that was possible?

Are the liberals who don't support him, not part of the american public? They don't try to discredit everything he does...he does a pretty good job of that himself. He lead the american people to believe Saddam was trying to develope a nuclear weapons when Iraq doesn't even have a nuclear power plant. Let me ask you this. 10 years from now, if no weapons are found, and there is no instance of terrorism using weapons aquired from iraq, and all evidence seems to show that the weapons were destroyed, will you change your view point on this Administration?

 

kinda like how under reagan we gave the weapons to Iraq? Or how we provided Iraq with satalite intelligence...infact even built a satalite downlink in baghdad and trained them how to use it, so they could calculate mustard gas attacks more efficiently on Iranian troops? Or how about how the War on Drugs has been a complete waste of tax payer's dollars?

 

about sudan and osoma....

the sudan operartive was not affiliate with the sudanese government. He was an idependent source (and unreliable one at that) who gave sketchy information. When the sudanese government was asked about it, they said no offer existed. Therefor, one would draw a conclusion that maybe this guy's trying to take the money and run?

 

Bush's job approval ratings since he took office from every national poll. I think I saw only two numbers where his favorability dropped below 50%...I skimmed pretty quickly so it may be more.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Also look at his favorability ratings as well...

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

Check those facts out...I doubt every single one of those polls has been doctored. But I am willing to bet you will use the following as your excuse as to how those numbers are incorrect...so prove me wrong.

Now since you seem so adamant that Clinton did all he could to capture Osama Bin Laden please allow me to poke a hole in your defiance. Actually I think it will be more like blowing a hole...but hey its really all symantics. You posted...

Here is an article from the LA Times...probably the second most liberal newspaper in the US secon to the NYT. It is a fascinating read actually. Here are some quotes.

Good stuff! That last quote was pretty stinging.

I don't have to tell you, Mansoor Ijaz just has for me...and in his own words he was a Clinton supporter.

To answer 18sec's post...a rather factual at that I might add..

I have found this tidbit of information taken from here

Also there is this link...
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/sudanC.htm
that has some pretty damning evidence as well.

Here is a good quote...

Well I have posted some first hand facts from the person that did the initiating of dialogue between the Clinton administration and the Sudanese government on the whole Osama Bin Laden deal. You posted...

But where is your proof of this? Could this be your own speculation?

Let me refresh your memory...

Could you please verify this information for me Where to next...oh yes the Clinton BJ thing...you liberals have still missed the boat on this one.

OK since this really seems to be a hard topic allow me to spell it out in a simpleton sort of way...

1) Who cares if he got a BJ...all he had to do was say "Monica gives good head, you should get some too. Let me see if I can arrange it for you!" and Ken Starr would not be the Democrats modern day McCarthy
2) He lied! Blatantly, flat out, he lied. After he got cought he lied. He even tried to argue the defenition of the word "is"! And this was all for a stupid BJ.
3) He was the first President to go on national TV, infront of the American public and while waving his finger say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" Jesus Bill did you really think anyone bought that?

Do you understand now? Do I need to get my 5 year old cousin to come explain it?
Can we finally get off this now?

Really? It did? Where are your facts? I cannot find anything to corroborate your story short of what was found on discussion boards like this one.

Check out your post dated 09-04-2003 04:29 PM and look at your first quote. I got that from a soldier returning home here to CT on our local news. Kinda a direct report from the front not tainted by some reporter. Sorry I cannot produce a quote, had I known it was going to be this important I would have taped it and converted it to a media file.

So where is this proof? I am going to take the same stance you have taken on the WMD. Till you produce the proof they have not been destroyed. And before you go spouting off a list of Al Samouds and Scudds that were destroyed I am specifically asking where the WMD that Iraq had in 1998/1999 when the weapons inspectors were there last went.

Well you wanted facts so I gave you facts and since you want me to answer your question...

Obviously the more important thing to investigate was terrorists...but Clinton was President so why was the FBI not doing that. He could have signed an executive order to investigat terrorists...did he? NO!

 

This is out of order but bear with me.

In my first post...dated 09-04-2003 04:29 PM my first quote was the US state department in 1945, so i'm assuming your talking about Michael Parenti's quote "The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology. " Is this the quote you are reffering to?

Thank you for finally answering the question. Look, i'm not trying to defend everything Clinton did. He ****ed up.. in ALOT of ways, but so have MANY other presidents. The fact remains that FBI investigators were already tied up analyzing a stain on a dress. Like i said..i'm not blaming bush for the terrorism, but it was the right wing playing politics that wasted valuable recources in the first place. MAYBE he could have signed an executive order, but I'm not sure of the steps the agents would have to take to be able to just switch what they are investigating. I would actually like to know if it could just be done. Unfortunately, I would need to know someone in the bureau to get this information, and i don't.

Please quit jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I never said he did all he could, but he did try. We knew Osama was a growing threat (we didn't know how devastating he would be 5 years later), and we definately wanted to catch him. Unfortunately Sudan was regarded as a terrorist state, one which we had sanctions against. They wanted to turn over DOCUMENTS about Osama and his goons....not Osama in the flesh. Your taking things out of context.....example.."they handed Osama Bin Laden to the US on a silver platter." Its not that simple. We couldn't just bring Osama here to try him, so we wanted another country to try him ( I believe Saudi Arabia). Unfortunately for whatever reasons the talks failed (maybe the same reason the intelligence community failed leading up to 9/11), Osama had a large network in sudan, including training camps and ALOT of money and funding both from supporters and from the Sudanese Government. We figured if they kicked him out of his "central command" and froze his accounts then it would be the next best thing we could do to capture him (Where we failed was when we "lost" him and he ended up getting his money back once he reached Afghanistan). A quick analogy (COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL). Say before the war, Iraq agreed to turn over all of its weapons of mass destruction, and did not try building them again (with an international force to verify they were cooperating) in exchange for Saddam to keep his life. Would it be worth it if he continued to give al queda funding? Its not the best analogy, but that was the situation we were stuck in with Sudan. And if you want to blame it on Clinton himself (it was his administration who handled most of this information) then it would be just as easily to blame Bush himself for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 and war with Iraq. They had a plethora of information that Al Queda was planning something big on US soil, but on 9/11 Condoleeza Rice hadn't gotten to the Intelligence information (which had been on her desk for several weeks) yet. It was just as much Condoleeza Rice's fault for not focussing attention on the threats to americans as it was Madaline Albrights fault for tripping up talks with Sudan.
But its the administrations mistakes you blame on Clinton himself (i guess thats how being the president goes) so I should be able blame Bush for his administrations mistakes.

I KNOW FOR A FACT...this one is going to get the "LIBERAL BIAS....BLAH BLAH BLAH", but hey choose to believe it if you want (but considering its foriegn media they have no reason for bias....so it must be 100% fake). This story was never played in america...probably for a very good reason, but it got quite a bit of attention in Europe. Where there is smoke there is fire, and there is a hell of alot more than smoke here. Remember those 28 pages blacked out of the 9/11 investigation?
Well check out this article from the BBC's Newsnight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
First he limits the FBI units assigned to trace leads about al queda funding. Then he personally asks Tom Daschle to limit the investigation into the 9/11 attacks, and finally...the investigation is over. But wait.....there are 28 pages blacked out of the investigation. IS BUSH TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING? Common sense should raise some suspicions in anyone's mind. Can you justify why Bush would want to limit the investigation of al queda funding....or if you don't like that because its from the bbc, can you justify why he personally asked Tom Daschle to LIMIT THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION? Wonder why the media didn't give this much coverage? Probably cause the media is all liberal right? Liberal media would never want to give much coverage to a possible conservative cover up would they?

Ok onto the polling subject. your www.pollingreport.com is just a collection of mainly cable news opinion polls. How are these Inaccurate? Well for one, anyone with just a little advanced computer knowledge can win any internet poll they want. Then there are the 'bots' that vote (however, most of these are filtered out...depends on the site though). Finally, check this out.
http://slate.msn.com/id/68660/

I'm almost possitive i haven't covered everything, but i'm going to bed. I'll cover anything i missed next time i'm on. (i'm not at the top of my game right now, if i've made mistakes, or made little sense i'll correct it then)