Author Topic: Finally..."W" takes the gloves off...  (Read 2139 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline rockbilly

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3367
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2005, 02:46:00 PM »
:D Ironglow.  First, By no means did I imply Jimmy Carter was anything more than honest.  Simply stated, that was his greatest accomplishment as President.

I can't disagree with you on George hz war record.  Thanks to him, and many more like him we live in a free nation today.  As for being a lier, please explain to me how the head of one of the most efficient spy organizations in the world did not know about the Iran Contra deal.  George wy. was head of the chia when this was going on.  Did he lie, or was he on vacation that day?  Oliver North is not, can not, and did not have the power in his position or rank to pull this off without help from a much higher source.  

As for Jorge W. Boosh (Texans gave him this name after selling us out and crawling in the back pocket of Mexico President Fox.),  speak not to me about war records.  I spent 24 years, 8 months, and 24 days in uniform.  While Jorge wy. was flying a bar stool in Houston, I was accumulating one of my 200+ mission, during one of my tours in Vietnam.  Thanks to punks like him, and there were a bunch (Clinton included), some of us had to serve two or more tours.  I don't claim to be a hero even though I do have several medals for my accomplishments.  When you try to glorify a, for all practical purposes,  draft dodger that spent his time flying (?) aircraft stateside, it makes me wonder, "Why did I waste my time?"

One of the saddest days of my life was the day I watched the Americans pull out of Vietnam.  Running like a bunch of scared dogs, defeated, their tails between their legs.  Not because we didn't have the will to win, but because it was a political was from day one.  One we couldn't win!  Can you say "Vietnam?" Can you say "Iraq?" Not much difference, another war we can't win. :cry:  :(  :cry:  :(  :cry:

Offline Brett

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5148
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2005, 05:06:11 PM »
Do you realy think the war in Iraq was all Bush's and the Republicans idea?  Think again.. they were in on it too and left Bush holding the bag.

(This Patriot Action Alert concerns the TRUTH about Iraq's WMD. Please forward this message to your list!)

On the heels of the "White House -- CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but charged one administration staffer with perjury), liberals are attempting to parlay that non-starter into a much bigger political brawl. Their charges have no substance, and are completely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections.

Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached.

Here are their accusations:

"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy

"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid

"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.

Naturally, the Democrat's media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

Bill Clinton: "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."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "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."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We 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."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida 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."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

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

Bob Graham: "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."

For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.

So, ask Ted, Dick and Harry, what is their real agenda?

One might fairly conclude that they are willing to reduce U.S. national security to political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of "lying." Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office -- to defend our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their most recent antics -- and all of America should look upon these disgraceful Demo-gogues, and anyone who supports this dangerous folly, as traitorous louts.

On Veterans Day, President Bush noted: "Today our nation pays tribute to our veterans -- 25 million vets.... At this hour, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of this century. This war came to our shores on the morning of September 11, 2001. ... We know that they want to strike again and our nation has made a clear choice. We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the War on Terror is won. ... t is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is too kind.

Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot

(Circulation of this Alert is sponsored by The Federalist Patriot, the most widely read conservative e-journal in America. If you have not already joined the ranks of Patriots receiving this highly acclaimed digest of news, policy and opinion, link to http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/alert0503.asp for your FREE e-mail subscription. (If you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: subscribe@FederalistPatriot.US and you will be subscribed automatically.)

Founder's Quote: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill
Life memberships:  <><, NRA, BASS, NAFC

Offline Bear Rider

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2005, 05:08:35 PM »
rockabilly,

You're right about one thing. JUST like in Vietnam, the left wing is out in the streets giving encouragement to those killing our soldiers. They already call our troops murderers and baby killers, so it's only a matter of time before they start spitting in soldier's faces.

Are you going to stand by when that happens in front of you?
Flintlock! Anything else is imitation.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31313
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2005, 11:25:59 PM »
Rockbilly;
 
  The "most efficient" spy organization didn't know about the Dem's version of the so-called Iran-Contra thing...perhaps because that thing never happened..
 
   I was infuriated to see troops that never lost a major battle, be forced to leave the battleground..

  Remember; it was the Democrat congress that cut off funds for the military in Vietnam..

  You should be most irritated about LBJ and McNamara sacrificing our troops as they did. Having our troops take strategic hills, only to order them off again..Ho Chi Minh trail "off limits"...refusing to allow our pilots to bomb the Sam missle sites placed in rice paddies etc.
  The enemy soon caught on to these leaders "political sensitivities" and used them to great advantage..the Ho Chi Minh trail was rerouted for greater enemy safety..and soon, rice paddies were the prime place to locate Sams...Duh !

  Then, along came McGovern...probably the one person up to that time, that did the Democrats more harm, and the Republicans more good than anyone else.

  As for Carter being at least HONEST...I gave you and example where he is clearly a hypocrite...that's simply another form of a liar..

  Even now, some of the things he is saying about the current president are untrue...
 
  BTW: Normal professional courtesy has historically been that past presidents do not criticize current presidents..Gerald (Klutz)Ford, R.Reagan and GH Bush have all honored this unspoken courtesy...only the Clinton/carter cabal have gone dirty...

  Brett has clearly outlined the entire bruhaha that is going on in Washington...and he has it right..

  Using your spelling, I'll delineate another question:
 
   Up through 2003..The Klintoons ( Slik and Hitlary), "Dingy Harry" Reid, Dick (call the troops nazis)"Turban" and Sandy Burglar ( papers in the
 pants fame) and many other Demoncrats said that Saddam "had weapons of mass destruction", "is an imminent threat" and  must be brought into line..etc.
 
  Rockbilly..Were those Democrats telling the truth both then AND now ?
   Duh! Duh! Duh!....

   Back in 2003 they at least sounded something like loyal Americans...

    They have achieved some of their dearest objectives in the honest Democrat party; consider how B J Clinton was so quick to pull things OUT of his pants...Sandy Burglar was just as quick to stuff things INTO his pants....NOW THAT'S DIVERSITY !
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline Brett

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5148
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2005, 03:57:10 PM »
Some 30 years ago my Jr High School science teacher predicted that the Soviet Union would become more and more democratic and that the US would become more and more socialistic.   Seems like his crystal ball was coming in clear.

You also have to note what the writer says in the 10th paragraph...

"The article also says World magazine Editor Marvin Olasky, the man credited with inventing the term "compassionate conservative," is himself a communitarian. Olasky flat-out denies it, and I believe him. So, this does call into question some of the reporter's other assertions."
Life memberships:  <><, NRA, BASS, NAFC

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31313
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2005, 08:16:20 PM »
WOW !  That must have been important TM..posted three times..that's tripling the article writer's mistake....just kidding..LOL
  Now you must know, neither myself nor most other on the right  here claim Pres Bush to be perfect !

  We just keep in mind what would have been the alternative...Kerry..Gore...Yeeshh !!
 
   The writer of that article surely has an "axe to grind", only question to follow is ..why ?
 
   After all, she was an operative in the dept of education...a useless institution..

  As Brett said however, when she starts calling Marvin Olasky a Communist...her credibility goes twisting down the commode...to the sounds of ..coo-coo...coo-coo.. !

  You're doing better TM..keep on reading World Net Daily..

 Perhaps next time, rather than posting some obscure, rarely read writer three times, you could post some of the excellent articles found there that were written by folks like Laura Ingraham, David Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.
   
   Their credibility probably rates much higher with folks found at Graybeards...LOL
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31313
  • Gender: Male
Finally..."W" takes the gloves of
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2005, 02:51:03 AM »
7;

   I know you didn't do it purposely..I was just baiting you..

   Besides; I make my share of "goofs" also..LOL
 
   I disagree with that author primarily on the Olasky line..
 I have been reading Olasky for some time now, since I subscribe to WORLD MAGAZINE..a weekly news magazine just like TIME, US News & World Report or NEWSWEEK.
  Olasky is a solid Christian and real Christians have little truck with  communism.  
    The main difference in news magazines being that the WORLD magazine is Christian based (and I believe more honest) than the other three.

   There is a lot going on in the education racket that I don't like...Things like overpay, featherbedding, retaining in some instances extremely unqualified teachers, the anti-God stance of many of their entities and the seemingly complete abandonment of moral values reflected in today's school environments.
  Then there's the evidence of pure, instituted laziness...in the way they teach children to read/write.
  The proper way is by phonics...but that takes a bit of work and patience.
It is far "easier" to let the student stumble and guess at it, and then pronounce 80% reading accuracy as "good enough".
     
Phonics is the main reason grandma and grandpa can most often read and spell better than today's students.

   As far as this " commutarianism" thing...maybe there is something to it..being a 90% cultural, 10% fiscal conservative, there are some conservatives I don't share a lot of values with...I will start to observe..

   BVut then, I don't like to consider many of these folks TRUE conservatives..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)