[zenblader]

...High level officials in the Bush administration are close to perfecting a weapon that may provide an end to the conflict in Iraq and bring certain victory in the upcoming presidential election. Sources credit the political office in the Whitehouse, and Karl Rove, with the breakthrough. The Pentagon is working on the final delivery system of what has been described as a fifty megaton Hypocrisy bomb. Clandestine labs have been filtering and purifying political lies, misdirection and bald-faced hypocrisy to concentration levels never seen outside of a Pat Robertson "Prayer for Dollars" telescam. Questioning John Kerry's military record while posessing not a whiff of personal accountability or service during the same period of time, gave the Bush Administration that last, lethal strain of pure hypocrisy required for desired effect. Ten megaton (Hypo) bombs have already been tested succesfully on an unsuspecting public within the United States. The mildly confused, zombie-like state exhibited by forty-five percent of the U.S. confirms the efficacy of a high grade hypocrisy blast. An unidentified official commenting on the outcome of the test was ecstatic. "A fifty megaton Hypo bomb activated within optimum parameters will have the desired effect of stunning an entire populace until long after a puppet regime is established in Iraq! As well as assuring the re-election of the current puppet regime in the U.S. Uhhhh. Did I say that?" -- Fox News

[Skully]

Well, who would rather have as president? This guy...

[Skully]

or this guy...

[Skully]

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by zenblader

...High level officials in the Bush administration

[bwhip]

Yeah, no hypocrisy in that Kerry voting record...

[Bacchus]

And awayyyyyyyy we go! (Jackie Gleason, for you other old farts )...

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by bwhip

Yeah, no hypocrisy in that Kerry voting record...

This voting record thing is being blown way out of proportion. All politicians, Demos and Repubs can be blasted with their votes. Appropriation bills are full of "poison pills" (pork and faulty systems that would never be adopted if they stood alone) intentionally put there amidst viable needs and systems. So every pol has to decide whether to take a stand against the pork and risk being blasted for voting no on the F-22, or vote yes, allowing the Osprey or the "Striker" to go into production knowing full well the thing is a freakin' deathtrap. Did you know that when Cheney was Sec of defense he came out against continuing production of the M1 tank? Against the B-2? He was over-ridden by Congress but he's on the record. My point is, if you've spent twenty or more years in DC as a pol, you've probably voted for and against a lot of things that can be dredged up and used against you by hypocrits who have done the same bloody thing! I maintain that for these chicken-hawks to puff up their chests and question Kerry's commitment to national security or whether Kerry's wounds were sufficient for 3 hearts while they sat on the sidelines is unbelievable hypocrisy. If a soldier came home from Iraq with 3 hearts and a Bronze medal, having lived thru and performed with distiction in live fire battles, would anyone with decency be questioning their service, the severity of their wounds? Absofreakinlutely not!! Where's the outrage over this?!! Assholes who winked and two-stepped out of Vietnam service coming out and questioning the veracity of a guy who actually volunteered, risked his life and served well. I guess it's okay 'cuz Kerry is a Democrat huh?
Sorry, bwhip. I know that Kerry isn't perfect, he's changed his mind on issues. He's said things in the past that he's admitted were wrong. But when we hear Bush, on the record, saying that God has given him the mandate to bring freedom to the world, doesn't that make your skin crawl just a bit? Especially after saying plainly during his '00 campaign that the US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. When he goes on the record and takes credit for programs he actually was against like Homeland Security doesn't that register on your slime meter? When he said "Bring it on!" 500 dead US soldiers ago, doesn't that tell you this guy has had his chance and just doesn't get it? Rant over. I know I won't change your mind and I do appreciate your opinion whether it agrees with mine or not. We can still be good guys and be on opposite sides of the political fence.

[Mo Noyz]

I decided to post on this thread BEFORE I decided not to.

[BigDaddyJ]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

I decided to post on this thread BEFORE I decided not to.

[bwhip]

Originally Posted by zenblader

...I know I won't change your mind and I do appreciate your opinion whether it agrees with mine or not. We can still be good guys and be on opposite sides of the political fence.

Sounds good to me!

I've said before that I'm not terribly impressed with either of the candidates. It's hard to believe that these are the best our system could come up with. While I am not comfortable with the idea of the US being the world's policeman, I don't believe we invited the 9/11 attacks, or the attacks in Spain, Saudi Arabia, the planned attacks in Jordan, etc. Does the world need a policeman? Or should terror go unchallenged? If not the US, then whom? The UN? Haven't seen them act decisively yet. France, Russia, Germany, et al? Maybe we're stuck with it, being a superpower and all.

Believe me, with young son in the military, the last thing I want is for us to be where we're not wanted, and where our troops are at risk. But I also know that none of us want to see planes getting flown into skyscrapers, trains getting blown up, "dirty bombs", etc.

Is our "preemptive" action in Iraq going to make us safer in the future? That will always be open to speculation. Bush and Clinton have been criticized for failing to act preemptively to prevent 9/11, but they would have been criticized as much or more if they had blasted the hell out of Afghanistan in an effort to prevent it.

I believe that courageous leaders need to have a vision of the right direction for our national security, and the stability of the world, and act according to that vision, regardless of the whims of polls and popularity, both at home and abroad.

My anyway.

[Mo Noyz]

Bush and Clinton have been criticized for failing to act preemptively to prevent 9/11, but they would have been criticized as much or more if they had blasted the hell out of Afghanistan in an effort to prevent it.

Can you imagine how the good folks would have reacted if Bush had come out on national tv and said that they had good intel that told them of an upcoming attack, and that we needed to attack Afghanistan immediately?

Yeah right...

And what would the reaction have been if he told us that these folk were planning on flying jetliners into the WTC?

Moron? Liar? Those types of insults would have ben but the tip of the iceberg.

I think that this situation is a real seat-o-the-pants affair. This isn't simple warfare against a given state. This is terrorism. And it's ubiquity is something that I believe is far beyond anything that we can fathom.

My, but it is all too easy to call the correct shots from our cozy little living rooms.

[bwhip]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

I decided to post on this thread BEFORE I decided not to.

Couldn't resist, eh?

[Mo Noyz]

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Can you imagine how the good folks would have reacted if Bush had come out on national tv and said that they had good intel that told them of an upcoming attack, and that we needed to attack Afghanistan immediately?

Yeah right...

And what would the reaction have been if he told us that these folk were planning on flying jetliners into the WTC?

Moron? Liar? Those types of insults would have ben but the tip of the iceberg.

I think that this situation is a real seat-o-the-pants affair. This isn't simple warfare against a given state. This is terrorism. And it's ubiquity is something that I believe is far beyond anything that we can fathom.

My, but it is all too easy to call the correct shots from our cozy little living rooms.

Totally disagree.

And what would the reaction have been if he told us that these folk were planning on flying jetliners into the WTC?

Moron? Liar? Those types of insults would have ben but the tip of the iceberg.

We did know. When an Al Quida operative was arrested in the Phillipines he was 'interrogated' (meaning tortured) and gave up this plan of attacking the US. He told the Phillipine officials of operatives undergoing flight school and eventually planning fly jets to hit several key targets in the US, including Washington. The Phillipine officials immediately contacted the US FBI. The question is how far did the FBI take this and how seriously? The FBI knew of and was watching these terrorist but did not know when the plan was to be executed. The President was made aware of this, hence Clarke asked to draw up a terrorist threat "plan". Although now, Ms. Rice doesn't see it as a "plan", just a list of things to do in case something happens. You mean a "plan"? Ms. Rice - "oh no, no plan, just a typed up stradegy and lists of things to do in case of". This was all before 9/11. (Declassified 08/2001 PDP) What would blowing up Afghanistan have to do with destroying the terrorist's 9/11 plan? Why are Bush and Cheney testifying togethor at the 9/11 commision when they were asked to testify seperately? I'm sure there will be no conflicting answers now when both are there to whisper to each what each should say. What a joke.

Here's a campaign question. What is President Bush's relationship with Suadia Arabia? Why were 140 Suadis (including Bin Laden's relatives) allowed to leave the US on September 12th 2001? What promise did the Saudi ambassador make as far as gas prices and the upcoming election? (there's a pool here at work to see who can guess the lowest price come October) How much money went from Suadi to terrorist organizations? The had televised telethon(?) raising $92 million dollars for families of suicide bombers and Al Quida for crying out loud. By the way, who bailed out Bush jr. on his failed oil investment in Texas (before he was elected) ? You scratch my back, and....

Alright I'm rambling now, just don't simplify statements/situations like some of these stupid campaign ads. I'm embarrased when I see Bush's ad of "Kerry doesn't want our soldiers to have jackets or weapons while they fight on the front lines. No tanks for our beloved soldiers. No missiles to protect our soldiers. Kerry wants to kill our beloved soldiers." Oh my God, give me a break. Spend the phucking mud slinging, childish, campaign advertisement funds some other way. That is our tax money isn't it? Doesn't each candidate get millions of federal dollars (our taxes) to offset their campaign funds?

[nomad]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

TWhy are Bush and Cheney testifying togethor at the 9/11 commision when they were asked to testify seperately?

Why not under oath?

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

My, but it is all too easy to call the correct shots from our cozy little living rooms.

"Because a large military presence will still be required under U.S. command, some would say 'Well you are not giving full sovereignty'. But we are giving sovereignty so that sovereignty can be used to say, 'We invite you to remain'. That is a sovereign decision," Powell said. --Powell responding to reporters this morning in Denmark

I am within spitting range of my living room. But I'll risk calling another shot. That statement (I did not make it up) is a stanky pile of BS!

Oh thank you, Daddy! For giving me the sovereignty to do what you want me to do.