WMD Tempost in a Teapot

[flinstoned]

Wesley Clark:

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

[flinstoned]

Quiz:

1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.

2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?

3. Further, could you please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.

4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?

5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?

6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?

7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?

8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you to kick him out for not paying the rent he owes?

9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?

10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?

11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?

12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?

13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?

14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?

15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?

16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?

17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?

18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?

19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?

20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?

21. Would Hillary?

22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?

23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?

[flinstoned]

Weapons of Mass Destruction.....

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Are the Dems still going to say that this is Bush's war?

[Kitt]

Hussein didn't have any, and he didn't fire any, scud missles into Kuwait at the beiginning or any other time during this last engagement. That was one of the many, many misconceptions and pieces of wrong information that was passed on by the whomever and then by you. It was cleared up very shortly after it was stated that it was incorrect. I don't know how you managed to miss the correction after all of this time.

There are 91 other UN resolutoions currently being ignored by countries other than Iraq. Most of them are being broken by Israel with the backing or the veto power of the US. The US is partly responsible for almost all of the resolutions that are being ignored. In the case of Hussein and Iraq it could well be argued that since the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq and in fact finding nothing, just as David Kay has done since, then Iraq wasn't breaking the reslolution, they were complying with it.

Your crap about Hussein/Bush is just crap. No need to address any of that. I'll be back with other specific replies to your numbers later. Take into account, in the meantime, that you were completely misstating the two that I addressed. Maybe you'll want to reread your blog to find other misrepresentations that you have undoubtedly made also. I skimmed, and saw several but don't have the time just now to address them. Besides, I'm hoping that the others on the board will fill in lots of the blanks.

It would be proper and right to source your quotes, by the way. In fact it would be proper to source the whole thing since I suspect that you didn't write any of it. So who did?

[flinstoned]

Thanks for your thoughts. It is from 620wtmj.com, which is a tv station I think.

[flinstoned]

Wasnt there a missle that hit a shopping mall in Kuwait?

[Brent88]

He did shoot missiles into Kuwait that he said he didn't have(hmmmm... still trying to figure that one out) fortunately, there were only a couple of injuries out of all of the launches.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Brent88
He did shoot missiles into Kuwait that he said he didn't have(hmmmm... still trying to figure that one out) fortunately, there were only a couple of injuries out of all of the launches. There is nothing to figure out. He didn't have scud missiles, and he didn't shoot anything else into Kuwait. The false accusation that he did has been rescinded. The US, not Hussein, 'missfired' a missile into a kuwait shopping center. There weren't only injuries from the missile, if I recall correctly, there were deaths. In any case, the word 'injuries' is non-applicable to being hit by shrapnel or buildig parts. That's called being wounded. Gaping lacerations and the like are a might more serious than what one might suffer from, say, falling off of a bicycle or swing set.

[flinstoned]

I can find no confirmation that Scud type missles were fired into Kuwait.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by flinstoned
I can find no confirmation that Scud type missles were fired into Kuwait. That's because there were no Scuds fired into Kuwait. The US fired some other type of missile into Kuwait. That did happen but I don't remember for sure if that happened at the same time that the rumor was started about Hussein's nonexistant Scuds and the Kuwait story in the first days of the invasion. The rumor lasted for a matter of one day or less before it was found to be without any substance or backiing. It lasted on this site for about a day or two. Fleet, and a guy who calls himself Dammit, who used to post on this site, were very excited about it; much the same as the guy you quoted was excited about it.

[flinstoned]

From my "research" the suspected scud was on 3/20/03. Looks like all the networks called it a scud at that time, and there were supposed to be 3 missles or so.

Kitt knows his Scud trivia ;)

[Fleet]

An update on the WMD search...

David Kay reports-

An Iraqi scientist, in 1993, hid in his refrigerator at his home, active strains of Botulim (still active when found), one of the most toxic elements known. He was also asked to hide others, including Anthrax.

There are now 3 cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and (in the case noted above), actual material which they were asked to hide them so the U.N. could not find them.

This is why I said months ago...

- We will find WMD in Iraq (and/or WMD transported out of Iraq into another country... probably both are true).
- Using the U.N. to search for these WMD is a waste of time because Iraq would (did) hide/move them.

I think we are just learning the beginning of what Iraq hid. Like I also said before, stay tuned and be patient!

We will first learn of these things from non-liberal news outlets, yes including Fox News- thank God this news station is exists.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
An update on the WMD search...

David Kay reports-

An Iraqi scientist, in 1993, hid in his refrigerator at his home, active strains of Botulim (still active when found), one of the most toxic elements known. He was also asked to hide others, including Anthrax.

There are now 3 cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and (in the case noted above), actual material which they were asked to hide them so the U.N. could not find them.

This is why I said months ago...

- We will find WMD in Iraq (and/or WMD transported out of Iraq into another country... probably both are true).
- Using the U.N. to search for these WMD is a waste of time because Iraq would (did) hide/move them.

I think we are just learning the beginning of what Iraq hid. Like I also said before, stay tuned and be patient!

We will first learn of these things from non-liberal news outlets, yes including Fox News- thank God this news station is exists. That botulim stuff is not the strain you like to think that it is. It is not anymore dangerous than dead bugs in a salad. You continuue to make a fool of yourself after months of ZERO Repeat ZERO evidence of ANY repeat ANY WMD in Iraq. NO weapons, NO weapons programs, not a damn thing. No tons, no missiles, no mushroom cloud making junk no NOTHING! Hundreds of millions of dollars later, with the help of thousands of US military and the flak David Kay's thousands of employees NOT A DAMNED thing has been found.

[Kitt]

Editorial: Invisible arsenal / The case against spending more to search Iraq

Friday, October 10, 2003

The Iraq Survey Group, a 1,200-person team that has spent the past three months searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, provided an interim report to Congress last week. The group, led by David Kay, said it had found no evidence that Iraq possessed such weapons.

Dr. Kay is a former arms inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He reports to George Tenet, director of central intelligence. The survey group's work was preceded by a months-long search carried out by a military team, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, which also found nothing.

The Iraq Survey Group concluded, based on its research so far, that Iraq wanted to produce biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and that it had retained some capacity to continue to try to produce them, but that no such weapons existed in its arsenal when the United States attacked.

The military task force and the survey group had had relatively free rein to search anywhere and question anyone they liked in Iraq for about five months and had spent some $300 million looking. Nonetheless, Dr. Kay has presented a request to Congress on the part of the Bush administration asking for another $600 million to pursue the quest for another six to nine months.

President Bush's comment on Dr. Kay's report was that the evidence of Saddam Hussein's interest in and efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction indicated that he was a serious danger to the world and thus needed to be eliminated.

But the survey's negative report exposes the severe flaws in the prewar intelligence used to support the decision to go to war and to sell the proposition to the American people. Besides, other questions now present themselves.

One is why the U.N. team that carried out the prewar inspections hasn't been brought into the current effort. That team has both information and considerable experience working in Iraq. Its involvement also would give more international credibility to whatever results are presented by the survey team. The second question is why the United States should spend another $600 million to search for evidence when nothing significant was found in five months of investigation by a team of more than a thousand people that has already cost $300 million.

The quest looks more and more political -- an effort to justify the questionable actions of an administration that took the United States into a war with Iraq that continues to cost lives and money. Without expressly saying so, the Kay report makes a strong argument that the continued search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should be put back where it belongs -- perhaps where it always belonged -- in the hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

[flinstoned]

If WMD are found or not, as the above quotes show there was broad support for the proposition he either had them, or was working on obtaining them and that he was not cooperating with the UN/US in proving he didnt have them.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
That botulim stuff is not the strain you like to think that it is. It is not anymore dangerous than dead bugs in a salad. You continuue to make a fool of yourself after months of ZERO Repeat ZERO evidence of ANY repeat ANY WMD in Iraq. NO weapons, NO weapons programs, not a damn thing. No tons, no missiles, no mushroom cloud making junk no NOTHING! Hundreds of millions of dollars later, with the help of thousands of US military and the flak David Kay's thousands of employees NOT A DAMNED thing has been found.
:lol: You never can admit when you're wrong, can you? :lol:

Even when the evidence is going to start pouring out, you will just continue to deny it, right?

[Fleet]

Originally posted by flinstoned
If WMD are found or not, as the above quotes show there was broad support for the proposition he either had them, or was working on obtaining them and that he was not cooperating with the UN/US in proving he didnt have them.
They will (are, actually) being found. But, you're right... just the fact that Iraq (Saddam) broke 17 U.N. resoultions in 12 years was enough of a reason to take action. Of course, if the U.N. actually backed up their own laws (resolutions)...

[flinstoned]

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
now its an unjust war??? Give me a break Kennedy. He must be sharing Rush's percocet.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by flinstoned
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
now its an unjust war??? Give me a break Kennedy. He must be sharing Rush's percocet. I found that quote and all of the other conveniently out of character quotes on this site...
http://www.davidstuff.com/

Is that where you got them? The site is not what I would call reputable. "24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence. I don't think so" --The site's founder, I think, is the author of that. A real 'teehee kind of guy huh? I have yet to locate the quote anywhere else thusfar except on David's stuff. Maybe it's around somewhere esle on some slightly more reputable site, but I doubt it. I don't know though. Does anyone?

[flinstoned]

it was from yhe site i indicated earlier. I dont know the 24 beers site.

[flinstoned]

2 pearls from that site:

My advice - Never take a beer to a job interview

If you object to logging, try using plastic toilet paper

[Jenya]

Originally posted by flinstoned
it was from yhe site i indicated earlier. I dont know the 24 beers site.

You're getting your Iraqi information from David Houle's personal webpage? That website has got nothing more than his own personal opinions. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[flinstoned]

I said no - I didnt know what that site was until Kitt pointed it out. The site I listed near the start ;)

[flinstoned]

Kitt those quotes appear to out of character now because the Dems have decided they need to create some controversy because they were badly mauled in the last elections cycle and have changed their tune. Its understandable, you dont run for office by saying Bush is doing a good job, but I could do better. You (generically speaking) attack, and attack, and that is what turns most voters off of politics.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
:lol: You never can admit when you're wrong, can you? :lol:

Even when the evidence is going to start pouring out, you will just continue to deny it, right? That has to be the most up is down and down is up statement yet by you. For a year and a half the evidence has been all NO WMD and that is what I have been going with. Yet you are saying to me that ":lol: You can never admit when you're wrong, can you? Geez man, get a clue. What is the matter with you? You are saying to me what you should be sayig to yourself. That stuck in the mud attitude of yours is beyond laughable. It is downright freaky.

:cuckoo :explode:

[flinstoned]

Dead bugs in a salad grosses me out man. :D

[flinstoned]

Originally posted by flinstoned
If WMD are found or not, as the above quotes show there was broad support for the proposition he either had them, or was working on obtaining them and that he was not cooperating with the UN/US in proving he didnt have them.

here here!

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
That has to be the most up is down and down is up statement yet by you. For a year and a half the evidence has been all NO WMD and that is what I have been going with. Yet you are saying to me that ":lol: You can never admit when you're wrong, can you? Geez man, get a clue. What is the matter with you? You are saying to me what you should be sayig to yourself. That stuck in the mud attitude of yours is beyond laughable. It is downright freaky.

:cuckoo :explode:
When you start getting all excited, that's when I know you'll do anything but accept the fact that WMD (and other illegal weapons) are being found.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
That has to be the most up is down and down is up statement yet by you. For a year and a half the evidence has been all NO WMD and that is what I have been going with. Yet you are saying to me that ":lol: You can never admit when you're wrong, can you? Geez man, get a clue. What is the matter with you? You are saying to me what you should be sayig to yourself. That stuck in the mud attitude of yours is beyond laughable. It is downright freaky.

:cuckoo :explode:
When you start getting all excited, that's when I know you'll do anything but accept the fact that WMD (and other illegal weapons) are being found.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
When you start getting all excited, that's when I know you'll do anything but accept the fact that WMD (and other illegal weapons) are being found. Excited? I was simply pointing out the obvious, that you have been doing cartwheels over false alarm after false alarm for a year or so now, and that you continue to do so. To top it off you laugh in your own face about it because you are so befuddlingly blind that you can't see that you are talking to and about yourself. It's El Freakazoid World. :crazy:

[Fleet]

Your continued excitement has shown me that the facts coming about about WMD is making you nervous!
(Translation- you, and others who said Iraq had no WMD, were wrong.)

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
Your continued excitement has shown me that the facts coming about about WMD is making you nervous!
(Translation- you, and others who said Iraq had no WMD, were wrong.) You whimper a lot about swearing, Fleet, but I'll have to remind you that you are full of shi-beans, :lol: You've been wrong about this WMD thing for over a year now, and you still do your little tee hee thing as if it's all been the other way around. There is no more to the amazement - not "nervousness" - that I have expressed than that. You blow my mind with your unending ability to ignore the facts. There are no "facts" coming out about WMD existence in Iraq. Comprende Numbskull?:crazy:

[Fleet]

When (not if) they are found, will you admit to being wrong?
(Look who I'm asking! :eek: )

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
When (not if) they are found, will you admit to being wrong?
(Look who I'm asking! :eek: ) I'll tell you what is insane about what you just said Fleet. You asked me a question and then topped it off with your sarcasm about 'look who I am asking', teehee. You have done double back flips time and again, after every false report, which there have been plenty of, about having supposedly located, physically or evidentially, some sort of WMD. You have never once said 'Oops, I was wrong'....again. Yet you are still doing your infantile gufaw thing at me, even though I have done the research before setting my typing fingers :typing: to the key board each time one of those incorrect reports hit the airwaves. I have written about and reported, so to speak, what was really found, or more correctly, not found, each time. Not once have you been man enough to say, 'Oh, dang, I jumped the gun Kitt I jumped on the Bush Bandwagon...again, you were right and I was wrong'.

So why in the heck do you still think it's funny to make fun of me for what you have been repeateldly guilty of several times over the past year or so? :eek3: :dizzy: pumpkin:

[flinstoned]

cool pumpkin

[Fleet]

Originally posted by flinstoned
cool pumpkin
I think even that pumpkin has more common sense than Kitt. ;)

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
Not once have you been man enough to say, 'Oh, dang, I jumped the gun Kitt I jumped on the Bush Bandwagon...again, you were right and I was wrong'.

I have criticized Bush for...
- Giving tax money to those who don't pay it.
- Not putting the military on our border.
- Not doing anything to stop illegal aliens from invading our country.

If it will make you happy, I'll say it-
- It was a mistake for Bush to say that part in his speech (Jan. State of the Union) about the nuclear weapons in Nigeria.
- Yes, the jumping-the-gun by the military/news media claiming that WMD have been found was not proper.

When the WMD are found, the last sentence above won't matter, anyway.

Not once have you been man enough to praise Bush for *anything.*

- Removing Saddam/liberating Iraq.
- Liberating Afghanistan/breaking up the Taliban.
- Eliminating Saddam's two evil sons.
- The rebuilding of Iraq.
- His excellent leadership during and after 9/11.
- The improving economy, thanks to his tax cuts.
- The fact that he kept his campaign promises.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
Not once have you been man enough to praise Bush for *anything.*

- Removing Saddam/liberating Iraq.
- Liberating Afghanistan/breaking up the Taliban.
- Eliminating Saddam's two evil sons.
- The rebuilding of Iraq.
- His excellent leadership during and after 9/11.
- The improving economy, thanks to his tax cuts.
- The fact that he kept his campaign promises. He hasn't kept his campaign promises/ The economy isn't inproved, it's horrible/ his leadership is abymal/ Iraq is not rebuilt it is in chaos/ what praise does Bush deserve for the son's being dead instead of on trial and possibly sharing important information?/ Iraq and Afghanistan are not liberated. One is under the rule of war lords, including the Talban, and one is under severe occupation and in such dangerous circumstances that the women are afraid to go out in public and soldiers and civilians are dying everyday/ Saddam is still alive...somewhere. He could have been removed for a lot less than the death destruction and the 200 billion dollars it has thus far cost.
In short, I've bothered to learn the truth instead of being a yes man for someone who's policies that many, including myself, consider to be abhorrent.
There is nothing I have seen Bush do worth praising.

[flinstoned]

He did keep his campaign promises, the economy has improved a great deal. He also cut taxes! :clap:

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
He hasn't kept his campaign promises/ The economy isn't inproved, it's horrible/ his leadership is abymal/ Iraq is not rebuilt it is in chaos/ what praise does Bush deserve for the son's being dead instead of on trial and possibly sharing important information?/ Iraq and Afghanistan are not liberated. One is under the rule of war lords, including the Talban, and one is under severe occupation and in such dangerous circumstances that the women are afraid to go out in public and soldiers and civilians are dying everyday/ Saddam is still alive...somewhere. He could have been removed for a lot less than the death destruction and the 200 billion dollars it has thus far cost.
In short, I've bothered to learn the truth instead of being a yes man for someone who's policies that many, including myself, consider to be abhorrent.
There is nothing I have seen Bush do worth praising.
I have never seen anyone as wrong as you.
Your above post is among the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

Two comments on your completely inaccurate post:

The economy is growing.
3.1% as of the last quarter (July, Aug., Sept.). It's expected to grow by about 5% for the last quarter (Oct. Nov., Dec.).
The stock market is also doing very well.
Not only is the Clinton/Gore recession over, but we are entering a good, growing economy.

Iraq is indeed being rebuilt. More so than most media outlets report on.
1,500 beginning and intermediate schools are now open.
So are universities.
Markets, banks, hospitals are also open.
There is now more electricity being produced in Iraq than before the war.
Newspapers are circulating.
Local courts are open.

Just keep denying it! :lol:

[Fleet]

Originally posted by flinstoned
He did keep his campaign promises, the economy has improved a great deal. He also cut taxes! :clap:
It's nice when someone knows what is going on in the real world (not Kitt's dream world)!

You're right, the economy has improved a lot (even with the 9/11 nightmare which hurt the economy very much).

You're right again, Bush promised to cut taxes and did.
We (finally, after 8 long years) have a president with morals! :thumbsup:

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
It's nice when someone knows what is going on in the real world (not Kitt's dream world)!

In the real world the United States government -- and that means you and I -- is strapped with a 500 billion dollar deficit. How anyone can brag and gufaw and puff out their chest over a gawdawful fact like that is one hell of a head-scratcher.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
In the real world the United States government -- and that means you and I -- is strapped with a 500 billion dollar deficit. How anyone can brag and gufaw and puff out their chest over a gawdawful fact like that is one hell of a head-scratcher.
And because of that deficit none of the things I listed above happened?

You can bet most of that deficit is because of the war on terror we are fighting. You prefer that there is no deficit and we are at greater risk for terrorism?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
And because of that deficit none of the things I listed above happened?

You can bet most of that deficit is because of the war on terror we are fighting. You prefer that there is no deficit and we are at greater risk for terrorism? Some day, if and when you actually have something of your own to say, say that, and then maybe you will stop repeating talking points or speaking for others as you just did once again for me. You do not speak for me Fleet--try as you might. The words you try to attribute to me, extremely idiotic that they are, words such as, "You prefer that we were at greater risk of terrorism" are all your words, Fleet, not mine. So you go ahead and keep them. I don't want them.

[Fleet]

BTW, even though there was a deficit in the '80s (because the Democrat-controlled Congress outspent Reagan), the economy was good. Strange, but true.