Timeline:

[Science Abuse]

A timeline:

 

-In early 2001, The Bush administration told us Iraq was not a threat, that they were controlled and couldn't produce WMD even if they wanted to. They have this on video from W, Rummy, Dick, and Condy.

-August 2001. President Bush, while on vacation in texas, got a daily intel report entitled; "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." It contained information about Al Quaida operatives in the U.S. taking flight classes. It was largely ignored.

-Sept. 11 2001

-Bush sends troops and bombers to Afghanistan, after loudly announcing "we coiming for you" and giving Binladen half a month head start. A couple years before, knowing full well that the Taliban was harboring the man responcible for the USS Cole and US Embacy bombings, Taliban members were welcomed with open arms to Texas. They were given the full compliment of diplomatic pleasentries. They were there to discuss running a NG pipeline through Afghanistan. The Oil company who want to run the pipeline employed an afghani advosor to the region, Hamed Karzai.

-Afghanistan is mostly secured, the taliban mostly got awy. Who will be the interim and future president? Hamed Karzi. What was the first public works project initiated after the ousting of the stubborn Taliban? An NG pipeline, as planned.

-2 years after saying Iraq was inept and incable, they suddenly were the greatest threat in the free world. We were told many times by many people in the administration that they were actively producing WMD and we had proof of it. Solid, incontravertable proof. Bush asked congress for permission to pursue military action based on this "intel", if and only if diplomatic means failed.

-Congress approved, and diplomancy was immediately dropped as an option. Bush issued his ultamadem; "Give up your WMD or we are invading!". They did not, and we invaded.

-Now we know they did not give up the WMD because they could not, they had none. Bush was right in 2001, they couldn't get them if they tried. The "intel" turned out to be false. It also came out that the administration was actualy told the contrary by pretty much everyone in the feild long before the invasion. There was never any credible data to support Bushs claims to WMD, but he pressed the case anyways, lied, and got us into a war. He dodged all this, and then "flip flopped" his reason for us being there.

-We were now there because Saddam helped Al Quaida, and by-god, we had evidence of this. Dick and W are on tape many times saying that there was no question, they supported Al Quaida specificaly. As it turns out, no they didn't, in fact, Saddam wanted nothing to do with them. Their presence in his country would be a threat to his power, of course he hated them. There were no Islamist terrorists operating there at all, they all came after our invasion opened the boarders. So, they completely dodged all that bad press and never adressed it. They "Flip Flopped" their justification again.

-We wre then at war to put "democracy on the march". So, contrary to what he said in his 2000 campaign, he now belived that the US SHOULD be in the buisness of regime changes. And that reason has stuck thus far, while 2500+ of our soldiers died for a cause that took 2 years to define.

Discuss

[nurkvinny]

Hindsight is always 20/20. If the US did not go to war with Iraq, there would have been just as many people copy+pasting political arguments on car forums saying we should have removed Saddam when we had a chance as there are spreading topics like this.

 

If they could bury a dozen jets in the sand, what makes you think they did not hide their weapons?

[Science Abuse]

 

If they could bury a dozen jets in the sand, what makes you think they did not hide their weapons?

They couldn't afford them. Their summer trip to Kuwaite nearly bankrupted the nation as a whole, to say nothing about their defence budget. They couldn't afford to fuel and fly their jets, they damn sure couldn't afford the cost of getting controlled substances into the country. No one int he world wanted to deal with him. Those that did, only tolerated him for the oil. After the invasion, everyone cried "for our muslim brothers in Iraq!", but it was politcal play. No one trusted Saddam, no one liked him. He simply could not get the stuff.

 

And hiding a reactor is a bit tougher then putting a 50 year old Mig in a hole.

[Lustalbert]

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

 

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

 

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

- Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, CIA Report, October 2002

 

If I am in charge, and my intlelegance agency tells me they have WMD, then it is in my best intrest to act on this information for the security of my country. Perhaps you shoule be questiong the CIA

 

There are link for iraq and the towel-a-ban. Ill post them later.

[nurkvinny]

And hiding a reactor is a bit tougher then putting a 50 year old Mig in a hole.

 

Just to play along...

 

The facility that created the weapon or weapons would not have to be in Iraq, now would it? We know by looking at his dozens of gold and marble-laiden homes that he had plenty of money to throw around. Cash he would have available to buy, oh, I don't know, weapons. Also, your reactor statement assumes nuclear weapons.

 

A weapon that can kill 100,000's would fit in the bed of my truck or in any garage or any shack in their country. Not too tough to hide.

 

Motives, reasons, profits, grudges, and "kick'n his ass for pappa" rhetoric aside, how can anyone argue it was a bad decision to remove him from power? Spend an hour reading what the man did to his people.

[Science Abuse]

Motives, reasons, profits, grudges, and "kick'n his ass for pappa" rhetoric aside, how can anyone argue it was a bad decision to remove him from power? Spend an hour reading what the man did to his people.

I never argued that, just meathods. We din't need a war to remove him from power. But, a drawn out war makes more money for people then a couple special opps maneuvers or a couple years of diplomatic proccesses.

 

The vast majority of those palaces were built and furished before Desert Storm.

 

Andrew:

Who's name is on that report? It's the opposite of what was said in 2000. Odd

Will your source on the Al Quaida ties be credible?

 

Or will all your info come from the people who need you to beleive it? Keep in mind, the info that came out just prior totyhe invasion was what the Bush administration wanted you to hear, it's what they wrote. When some one comes out and says "No, thats not what I reported, you're lying", Bush or his cronie Rove does something to smear them, like leak classified info identifying a CIA operative/wife.

 

I saw a rather hilarious intervied with Dick a couple years back. The lady brought up that he said 'Sadam had direct links to Al Quaida, we've got proof of it, its true', and reminded him that it had come out that that "intel" was false, and that Saddam actualy took efforts to keep them out. Dick responded with 'No i never said, that, dont put words in my mouth". she said 'But sir we've got you on tape saying those exact words'. He said something like 'I dont care what you've got on tape' and the interveiw was over. They rolled the tape, she was right. Fuck sake I wish I remember who that was. There's a reason they only do interveiws on Fox anymore.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Before anyone gets caught up in this argument, I want to know a few things:

1: Benz Guy, what is your source? Is that quoted from another forum, and if so, who is the original poster's source.

2: When trying to make a political claim, why didn't the original author of that take enough time to spell "are" a-r-e instead of w-r-e.

 

That said, I want to point something out about this "article."

while 2500+ of our soldiers died for a cause that took 2 years to define.

A cause that takes two years to define is NOTHING in retrospect to the history of the United States. We don't even know what the goal of a capitalist democracy is even 200 years after our own Constitution's notorization by the founders of our society, and even then it was a second attempt after the Articles of Confederation turned out to be a complete fluke. People bitch about 2500+ men and women sacrificing their lives for a cause we aren't sure of. I know what cause they're fighting for; the belief that somehow we have a responsibility as a society to help where it is needed. Not a single person can deny that Saddam Hussein was not ruling in the best interest of his people; the leader of a country has a responsibility to do what is best for the people whom he or she serves. President Bush has not entirely done this, but I think he's done a damn good job considering the amount of shit he's had to put up with. I'm all for seeing him leave office sooner rather than later, but while he's here he's trying to do the best job he sees fit. I don't agree with every single thing, and lately I've begun to think he's done a worse job, but damn.

[Science Abuse]

Actualy, it was me who wrote that all, hense the mispellings. I wrote it on anther forum. Rather then tout it as new, since people here visit there, I just copy/pasted and quoted. The sources are great and many, keep in mind it covers 5 years of information. I've paid close attention these years and alot of it is memory. Some news agencies are nice enough to aire clips from time to time. If you'd like a source for any particulars, lemme know, and I'll set forth to dig it up. Right now I just dont have the time or drive to write that much.

 

I saw a rather hilarious intervied with Dick a couple years back

Found it:

 

TRANSCRIPT FROM GLORIA BORGER'S INTERVIEW OF VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY ON CNBC'S CAPITAL REPORT (June 17, 2004)

 

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well

confirmed."

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

 

BORGER: OK.

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

 

BORGER: I think that is...

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never

been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.

 

BORGER: Well, now this report says it didn't happen.

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. This report says they haven't found any evidence.

 

BORGER: That it happened.

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.

 

It was on Meet the Press a couple months earlier that he indeed said, quote; "It was pretty well confirmed". Have a read of some MSNNC guys recalling dick roller coaster: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

Cheney, for example, called the claim of an Atta meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague “pretty well confirmed” in a Dec. 9, 2001, “Meet the Press” interview. In a Sept. 8, 2002, “Meet the Press” appearance, just weeks before the congressional vote on authorizing President Bush to go to war, Cheney again returned to the issue: “We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center.”

 

"I know what cause they're fighting for; the belief that somehow we have a responsibility as a society to help where it is needed."

North Korea

Ruwanda

Sierra Lione

Nepal

Actualy, pages and pages of african republics. Atrocities are great and many. Iraq is in shambles, and life is as bad, if not worse then it was under Saddam. How many people have gone without running water or electricity since 2002? Saddam ruled with an Iron fist and kill anyone who looked at him funny. But Iraqi's could walk out their front door in the morning without worrying abou getting caught in a crossfire, or blown up by and IED placed by a foreign terrorist to keill a foreign soldier. Shits fucked up there right now. It'll get better, but dont say things are better off right now.

 

This is why we can't simply pull out. It's a fucking mess, it was wrong to make it, and it'd be just as wrong to leave it. You dont fuck up some ones house without helping them fix it. Bush tossed us into the pool, we're here, not swimming isn't an option.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Actualy, it was me who wrote that all, hense the mispellings. I wrote it on anther forum. Rather then tout it as new, since people here visit there, I just copy/pasted and quoted. The sources are great and many, keep in mind it covers 5 years of information. I've paid close attention these years and alot of it is memory. Some news agencies are nice enough to aire clips from time to time. If you'd like a source for any particulars, lemme know, and I'll set forth to dig it up. Right now I just dont have the time or drive to write that much.

 

 

Found it:

 

TRANSCRIPT FROM GLORIA BORGER'S INTERVIEW OF VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY ON CNBC'S CAPITAL REPORT (June 17, 2004)

 

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well

confirmed."

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

 

BORGER: OK.

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

 

BORGER: I think that is...

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never

been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.

 

BORGER: Well, now this report says it didn't happen.

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. This report says they haven't found any evidence.

 

BORGER: That it happened.

 

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.

 

It was on Meet the Press a couple months earlier that he indeed said, quote; "It was pretty well confirmed". Have a read of some MSNNC guys recalling dick roller coaster: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

 

 

"I know what cause they're fighting for; the belief that somehow we have a responsibility as a society to help where it is needed."

North Korea

Ruwanda

Sierra Lione

Nepal

Actualy, pages and pages of african republics. Atrocities are great and many. Iraq is in shambles, and life is as bad, if not worse then it was under Saddam. How many people have gone without running water or electricity since 2002? Saddam ruled with an Iron fist and kill anyone who looked at him funny. But Iraqi's could walk out their front door in the morning without worrying abou getting caught in a crossfire, or blown up by and IED placed by a foreign terrorist to keill a foreign soldier. Shits fucked up there right now. It'll get better, but dont say things are better off right now.

 

This is why we can't simply pull out. It's a fucking mess, it was wrong to make it, and it'd be just as wrong to leave it. You dont fuck up some ones house without helping them fix it. Bush tossed us into the pool, we're here, not swimming isn't an option.

Alright, in my experience with reading your posts etc. you're a pretty knowledgable guy who does responsible research. It doesn't mean I won't take everything you say with a grain of salt, though.

[Science Abuse]

Alright, in my experience with reading your posts etc. you're a pretty knowledgable guy who does responsible research. It doesn't mean I won't take everything you say with a grain of salt, though.

You fuckin better. This is America, it's your responcebility to take all political banter thatway.

[lemosley01]

They couldn't afford them.

Yeah, but they *could* afford to give out how many BILLIONS of dollars in the OIF scandal? There was a reason that Russia, France, China, and Germany didn't want us to go into Iraq. We know why now (OIF and because they were SELLING things to Saddam that maybe they shouldn't have been. OOPS!)

 

Funny Russia and China (or is it France) also doesn't want to deal with Iran. Wonder how much shit they've sold to the Iranians that they shouldn't have?

 

Their summer trip to Kuwaite nearly bankrupted the nation as a whole, to say nothing about their defence budget. They couldn't afford to fuel and fly their jets, they damn sure couldn't afford the cost of getting controlled substances into the country.

 

OIF. Need I say more? Money was not a problem for Saddam. Maybe for his people, but it was never a problem for Saddam.

 

BTW, Saddam's trip to Kuwait was a fall/winter excursion. Both Kuwait and Iraq lie wholly above the equator and therefore have the same 'seasons' as we.

 

No one int he world wanted to deal with him. Those that did, only tolerated him for the oil. After the invasion, everyone cried "for our muslim brothers in Iraq!", but it was politcal play. No one trusted Saddam, no one liked him. He simply could not get the stuff.

 

Right. We weren't worried about him BUYING fully assembled weapons. We were worried about him figuring out how to put these weapons together and buying or creating the raw materials to build them or buying materials on the black market. If you offer someone (scientists for example) many millions of dollars for 'research' you think they won't take it? There are an awfully lot of former Warsaw Pact scientists out there looking to make money. There are many black marketeers looking to move all kinds of goods.

 

This was never about 'Saddam trying to buy a nuclear warhead or chemical weapons', it was about 'Saddam is trying to build nukes and chemical weapons using resources in his own country'. Don't try to twist history.

 

And hiding a reactor is a bit tougher then putting a 50 year old Mig in a hole.

 

 

Let's give you a little timeline.

 

In 1998, Bill Clinton and Assoc. trooped out all sorts of 'evidence' that Saddam was trying to build or acquire weapons, Saddam was still hiding weapons, and Saddam is a threat. They did this to drum up support for the strikes on Saddam that later took place in December of 1998. No one questioned that intelligence at that time. Why?

 

5 years later, Bush & Assoc. troop out the same information based on the SAME INTELLIGENCE that the Clinton Administration used. Again, NO ONE QUESTIONED THIS INTELLIGENCE. EVERYONE believed it UNIVERSALLY. There was no dispute in 1998, and there was, again, no dispute in 2002. Saddam had almost 5 years of unmonitored time with which to do whatever he pleased. There was no reason to think any different in 2002 than in 1998, and a lot more reasons to believe he had gone further since no one had been watching him.

 

Congress had access to the same intelligence that Bush used to make his case, yet they DID NOT QUESTION IT. They VOTED for action. The UN did not question the intelligence and they ratified further resolutions, one of which included the allowance to take action if Saddam were in material breach. The UN Inspection teams said that Saddam was in material breach before we ever went into Iraq.

 

If you think, somehow, that Bush is directly responsible for 9/11/2001, you are as far removed from reality as your 'party' of choice. The Clinton Administration KNEW that Bin Laden was a threat to us for years and had MUCH more time to capture/kill him, than did GW Bush, yet they never eve tried. Somehow this is the fault of a President that had been in office for EIGHT MONTHS, when his predecessor had EIGHT YEARS to capture this guy.

[Science Abuse]

The Clinton Administration KNEW that Bin Laden was a threat to us for years and had MUCH more time to capture/kill him, than did GW Bush, yet they never eve tried.

You're as far removed from reality ans those who think Bush knowingly allowed 9/11 to happen (my point was he didn't do anything to prevent it). Bill Clinto couldn't do shit, do you remember the term "Wag the dog" popping up on picket signs everywhere? He had ZERO support to go after Bin Laden. All the intell we had on OBL, we got during the Clinton years. The FBI and CIA both got specific devision devoted to him. They found him, they wanted to go after him....and no one let them. "Wag the Dog" they said, "You're just trying to draw attention from your blowjobs!". Support from the Republican controlled congress was neccesary, and it was lacking. Terrorists just weren't a threat to anyone not in a foreign embassy. They tried, and they were not allowed. The only thing they could do was send a cruise missle into a pharmacuticals plant suspected of making chemical weapons, and diplomaticaly preasure Jordan to do something about Bin Laden....they just kicked him out.

 

Political power plays by the republican party have cost this country alot. Going back on their record, they largely suck as leaders. But they sure as hell know how to get people to elect them. Just look at the primary ads on TV right now. Not one of them is running on their record, all slander. Ask people why they picked bush in 2004, they say its because "Kerry was no better", or because he was a christian.

[lemosley01]

You're as far removed from reality ans those who think Bush knowingly allowed 9/11 to happen (my point was he didn't do anything to prevent it). Bill Clinto couldn't do shit, do you remember the term "Wag the dog" popping up on picket signs everywhere? He had ZERO support to go after Bin Laden. All the intell we had on OBL, we got during the Clinton years. The FBI and CIA both got specific devision devoted to him. They found him, they wanted to go after him....and no one let them. "Wag the Dog" they said, "You're just trying to draw attention from your blowjobs!". Support from the Republican controlled congress was neccesary, and it was lacking. Terrorists just weren't a threat to anyone not in a foreign embassy. They tried, and they were not allowed. The only thing they could do was send a cruise missle into a pharmacuticals plant suspected of making chemical weapons, and diplomaticaly preasure Jordan to do something about Bin Laden....they just kicked him out.

 

Political power plays by the republican party have cost this country alot. Going back on their record, they largely suck as leaders. But they sure as hell know how to get people to elect them. Just look at the primary ads on TV right now. Not one of them is running on their record, all slander. Ask people why they picked bush in 2004, they say its because "Kerry was no better", or because he was a christian.

 

Bill Clinton didn't try. Congress has nothing to do with actions like that. Those fall under the jurisdiction of the President. He has enough singular authority to 'go after terrorists'. How do we know? He authorized an executive order to assasinate or capture Bin Laden, but it doesn't seem to have been pursued with much zeal. The CIA lies under the Executive branch - he has all the authority he needs to go get the bad guys. Ignoring Bin Laden at large, Clinton never seemed to care much about terrorism, even after the WTC, Khobar Towers, and USS Cole were bombed and the fiasco in Mogadishu occurred.

 

edit: Forgot to mention, Clinton apparently had enough authority to get us INVOLVED in Somalia and Bosnia, but not enough to track down and kill any and all terrorists? Something smells rotten in Denmark, like your argument that he had 'no power'.

 

Bill Clinton didn't try to make THIS case to the American people and Bill Clinton had EIGHT years and several different attacks upon US targets and he didn't even TRY.

 

Regardless, I am not laying blame at the feet of the Clinton Administration, because, frankly, no one took terrorism seriously. It was (and is) a risk you took when travelling outside of the country. You would have thought the first WTC bombings would wake us up, but apparently it wasn't enough. However, to expect and administration to 'do something' about terrorism when it had been in office 8 months is ridiculous, especially when, at that point, all of the democrats wanted to focus on was 'how bad the economy is' (oh, you don't recall this? I do.)

 

However, your 'Timeline' is an attempt to rewrite history and try to turn one of the current (or any for that matter) President's best examples of leadership into some sort of consipiracy that he and Darth Cheney were behind this attack. You are using the typical democrat/liberal attack of

1) make an accusation no matter how unfounded (Bush knew about the attacks and let them happen so that we could invade Iraq) and

2) Try to force the other side to defend itself, which it cannot do, because all you have to do is make up more lies and accusations. You have the media to help perpetuate the lies, so it's all cherry.

 

Before you try throwing all of these accusations around, maybe you should try reading the 9/11 report, the Butler Report, the Dulfer Report, and David Kay's reports. Perhaps then you will have an understanding of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

 

I'm not going to waste time responding to attacks on the Republicans other than to say: Welfare, Vietnam, the IRS, Social Security. Go look them up.

 

All references in my previous post referring to OIF are incorrect. I meant OFF (UN Oil For Food).

[Science Abuse]

Jesus spin doctering christ! The shit is getting deep, I should have brought my waders. Yes, the president does need congresses approval to send troops anywhere, if for nothing else then ethical reasons. Unlees you're a cocky premodonna president like our current one, you enforce the will of the people, and congress is supposed to represent them.

 

Secondly: One president began the programs, and dealt with foggy info of a virgining intel program. None of it was nearly as effective back then, it was pretty much all new Apart from the first WTC bombing, all attacks were focussed overseas. Bush came into a much more refined system with an infinately larger base of knowledge. He didn't get a report of supposed positions and plans in lands 10,000 miles away, he got a report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to strike within the US", and it was full of info, like the fact that OBL cronies were already IN the country and learning to fly commercial air liners.

 

If you dont see a difference int he two situations, you need to call up Fox News and get your own talk show, they're looking for just your type.

 

I'm not going to waste time responding to attacks on the Republicans other than to say: Welfare, Vietnam, the IRS, Social Security. Go look them up.

Bwhahaha I couldn't have picked better examples! Accept welfare, it needed trimmed, I'll give you that (see, we can agree!).

Vietnam, the most wastefull and tragic military campaign in US history. LBJ, a republican threw us into it "to fight the commies". It economicaly destroyed the nation. But, as is protocol for the Republicans, they boosted national patriotism and jingoism to distract everybody. He burned billions of dollars and, more importantly, 52,000+ american soldiers. Nixon, under pressure by the american public and just wanting to be liked pulled us out. Best descision he ever made, but you cant commend the elephants for that. If you make a mess and clean it up, you dont deserve a medal, especialy if you kill 52,000 americans in some one elses revolutionary war.

 

Social security? I dont know why everyone credits Regan with winning the Cold War, we fuckin payed for it. Yes, there was a whole lot of money there not being used by anyone (yet), they just couldn't leave it alone.

 

The IRS? You're referring the one of the Repubs most valuable weapons. Delay LOVES the IRS, they audited the books of a non-profit organization that made sport of bashing him during campaign years. Try that when you're getting audited, bitches! Of course, they were found innocent of any wrong doing. For "security reasons", the IRS began withholding data on its audit, collection, and other enforcement activities. There is also a push to get private contractors involved in the collections proccess. Such a move would allow administration officials to award contracts to their cronies; those cronies would be able to conceal their collection strategies from public disclosure by claiming immunity from FOIA requests as "trade secrets," protected under 10 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Effectively, the IRS could prevent public disclosure of how it decides who gets audited; their audit procedures; and what methods are used to collect the "debts" the IRS says are due.

You're absolutely right, they got their fingers deep in the IRS puppet. Good point.

 

 

You know, you're bringing good points, and very well put together. But I cant help but notice something. You're fairly lonely. If I'd posted this a year ago, there'd be 3 pages of folk calling me a hippy-lib and backing Bush furiously. All is fairly quiet on the right'wing front, not so many people backing him up anymore. Why is that?

[Orion]

thats because you were wrong back then, and youre still wrong. were just tired of arguing with you.

[Science Abuse]

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/9851/owned49fz.jpg

[Billy]

The president does not need the approval of congress to send troops. He can send them anywhere for, (I think it is 90 days, not 100% sure on time frame) then congress can have them brought back. Or, if that is ineffective, congress cannot approve money for the troops(and instead use it for the highway bill, good grief there is SO much wasted money there) and with no money, the troops will have to be brought back home.

[LJ]

The president does not need the approval of congress to send troops. He can send them anywhere for, (I think it is 90 days, not 100% sure on time frame) then congress can have them brought back. Or, if that is ineffective, congress cannot approve money for the troops(and instead use it for the highway bill, good grief there is SO much wasted money there) and with no money, the troops will have to be brought back home.

 

I believe that is pretty right...

 

I don't know where you got your info that the president has to have congress's approval to send troops anywhere... The President can send troops anywhere he wants, Congress has to declare war

[Mojoe]

Thank you everyone for being so in tuned to what is going on (no sarcasm meant). Just out of curiosity, how many of you will pick up a weapon and defend what you believe? BTW, the only branch of service the president can send someplace without going through congress is the Marine Corps. And you are right, it's for 90 days.

[Casper]

You're a bright chap, DJ, you're stance on this administration and the party boggles the mind. "The Party of Ideas" is so because htey have no set stance on anything, they're soley focussed on elections. You think they support the same values as you, but do they realy? Keep in mind, if the Republicans had gotten their way, you specificaly wouldn't be here. Your Dad would have been arrested for approaching you mom, or they'd never have met in the first place, since he'd been going to another school, another theater, another pool, etc etc. Those were the values that their constuency held back then, so they faught like hell to keep them thar nigros' out aour skools!" The same guys have held office loooong after segregation and the interracial marriage bans were dropped, did they realy change their minds? Or would they turn in a second if the hardcore christian public suddenly embraced racism again? "The Party of Ideas" what apack of short haired, clean cut, employed hippies.

 

I am deeply curious DJ, since you know I love ya and respect you. What draws DJ Bass to the Republican party? Seriously, I want to know. You're smart enough, you might just turn me. The Left is disorganized, they cant focus on one thing to push it through. It's comprised of different people of different backrounds and different ideals....sounds alot like America. The Rupublican level of organization is frightening. The 11th commandment? Thats some communist shit right there. Where do conspiracy theories come from? Probably from large groups of people within an organization coming together both behind the scenes and in the spotlight to push through legislation benificial to that organization...hmmmm

 

 

Read your history before you make yourself look more like an ass:

 

The tensions came to a head with the 1860 presidential election. Abraham Lincoln, who was opposed to the expansion of slavery was swept into office with a plurality of popular votes and a majority of electoral votes. Lincoln however, did not appear on the ballots of ten southern states: thus his election necessarily split the nation along sectional lines. Many slave owners in the South feared that the real intent of the Republicans was the abolition of slavery in states where it already existed, and that the sudden emancipation of 4 million slaves would be problematic for the slaver owners and for the economy that drew its greatest profits from the labor of people who were not paid.

 

Lincoln was a Republican. If Lincoln hadn't been elected in 1860, slavery would've continued.

 

:finger:

 

What's your deal Eric? Do you get a hard-on from talking shit about Republicans? Or are you seriously a tree-hugging hippy who likes gay butt sex and rainbows?

[Casper]

As for segregation, here are a few websites you should check out before you keep talking:

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/035wxlrv.asp

 

http://www.scaredmonkeys.com/?p=616

 

This one I particularly like: http://www.kawvalley.k12.ks.us/brown_v_board/segregation.htm

Republicans wanted to ensure that with the remaking the south, freed blacks were made viable members of society. But the strong southern legislatures finally gave in; in 1868 they repealed most of the laws that discriminated against blacks.

 

Things were starting to look up. But by 1877 Democratic parties regained their power of the south and ended reconstruction. This was devastating to the blacks. After all the strides they made were reversed. From holding political offices, the right to vote, and participating as equal members of society was changed.

[copperhead]

thats because you were wrong back then, and youre still wrong. were just tired of arguing with you.

 

Fucking truth.

 

 

You think they support the same values as you, but do they realy? Keep in mind, if the Republicans had gotten their way, you specificaly wouldn't be here. Your Dad would have been arrested for approaching you mom, or they'd never have met in the first place, since he'd been going to another school, another theater, another pool, etc etc. Those were the values that their constuency held back then, so they faught like hell to keep them thar nigros' out aour skools!" The same guys have held office loooong after segregation and the interracial marriage bans were dropped, did they realy change their minds? Or would they turn in a second if the hardcore christian public suddenly embraced racism again? "The Party of Ideas" what apack of short haired, clean cut, employed hippies.

 

 

ERIC, stop pulling these "facts" outta your ass!!! Have you ever heard of a "southern democrat" or a "dixiecrat"? THOSE were the plantation owners in the south before the civil war! Like Ben said, Lincoln (a republican!) signed the paper to free the slaves. All of those southern dem's got pissed and pulled out of the union, which lead to the civil war. The reason that so many black people turn to the dem's is that back in the 60's during all the civil rights and hippy horseshit, the democratic party PROMISED all kinds of shit to all kinds of different groups about how they were going to help them out one way or another, but that kinda stems back to the great depression, when whatever dem was in office at the time (forget who it was) started all of those social welfare programs that so many minorities love to exploit today.

 

Now, explain to me why you think the republican's are so racist when Cheney is a Jew (the first in that high of an office, mind you), secretary of state Colin Powell (a black man), Condelezza Rice (a black lady), OHIO secretary of state Ken Blackwell, etc. Isn't Colin Powell's replacement a latino? How many minorities have the dem's ever had in high ranking offices?

 

Vietnam, the most wastefull and tragic military campaign in US history. LBJ, a republican threw us into it "to fight the commies".

 

One last thing, Lyndon B. Johnson was indeed the man that got us into the Vietnam war. HE WAS A DEMOCRAT YOU DIPSHIT.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/lj36.html

 

Stop inventing history!

[Casper]

Eric FTL. End of discussion.

[Lustalbert]

Wow. I feel like an idiot, how did I miss the LBJ one? :doh:

[Orion]

eric, i wasnt alive back then, and the republicans that we vote or do not vote for were not making policy back then either. todays liberal is yesterdays conservative.

 

i cant in good conscience vote down a democratic line because if the party's stance on some very key issues. specifically most of those regarding race. affirmative action, welfare (if you dont think thats a race issue, youre a moron), civil liberties, homosexuality, to name a few, and one very big one, which is abortion. in my mind, abortion is the murder of children. any party that endorses it will never be one that i vote for.

 

for the record, i really dont like getting my politics involved in any discussion, and so i have lots of other reasons that i wont bring up here.

 

also, i DONT VOTE DOWN PARTY LINES. i voted for coleman in our last mayoral election. i try to vote for who i think is the best candidate for the job. i try to make a determination regarding that persons individual practices, policy and character, and vote based on that. if both guys come up equal to me, i tend to vote republican. i am no bush fan, and i never have been. the democratic party's failure to field any candidate worth voting for in the last two elections is no one fault but there own.