Clinton's Ex-Friends

[Disagreeable]

His contact with the Iraqi army is quite different than a lot of what I see on the 'net and in the news.

That should tell a smart man (or woman) something. Either I am telling a lie, my cousin is telling a lie, or the liberal news media which you put so much faith in , which is a known liar, is telling a lie. My cousin gave an account of a incident where a couple commanders had to come in and identify a deceased soldier of theirs. They (if I remember correctly) told him in a somber fashion how much they appreciated the price the United States was paying and how they appreciated the work he had done on their soldier. They were in a rush to get back to their troops which were in a hot spot. It doesn't sound like something I have heard you recite which you pulled off CNN or something CBS reported. It sounds much more believable. Of course my cousin has so much to gain by telling these lies to his wife and she has so much to gain by telling me that there is the possibility that the money pressure made them distort this news.

I don't doubt there are Iraqis who appreciate the overthrow of Saddam. Ahmad Chalabi was just at the White House and he thanked us profusely for overthrowing Saddam. Of course, he's still wanted in Jordan, maybe still under investigation for giving US military information to Iraq, and is in charge of Iraq's oil, but he is greatful for our help in making him a powerful figure in Iraq. :???:

But there are plenty of Iraqis who say things are no better than they were before the invasion. Thousands of doctors, lawyers, professional people have left the country because they're afraid of criminals and thugs roaming the streets, car bombs going off in their markets, being snatched off the streets and imprisoned for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And I don't give a hoot what the Iraqis think. They didn't ask us to come into their country and destroy it. Their government has signed a statement that it's ok to kill members of an occupying army (US). So if your child or husband gets killed, that's no problem for the Iraqi government. There's no crime.

And I'm still waiting: Why is it ok for Bush to use the names, deaths of our soldiers in justifying that this war continue, yet it's not ok for me to use their names to get the killing stopped?

Do you have an answer, or is it just a knee jerk reaction when I post something to disagree and insult me?

 

[mp.freelance]

And I'm still waiting: Why is it ok for Bush to use the names, deaths of our soldiers in justifying that this war continue, yet it's not ok for me to use their names to get the killing stopped?

Wow, are you an egomaniac or what? You seriously think you have a hand in all this, don't you? Contact a psychiatrist, it might help.

 

[Disagreeable]

And I'm still waiting: Why is it ok for Bush to use the names, deaths of our soldiers in justifying that this war continue, yet it's not ok for me to use their names to get the killing stopped?

Wow, are you an egomaniac or what? You seriously think you have a hand in all this, don't you? Contact a psychiatrist, it might help.

Red Robin jumped on my case because I listed the names of our military killed in Iraq. I'm asking her why it's ok for George W. Bush to use their personal letters as well as their deaths to further his politicial agenda, yet not ok for me to use their names. I don't see why you're even bothering to get involved here, unless your conscience is bothering you.

 

[mp.freelance]

Do you try to be a pompous ass, or does it just come naturally?

 

[Red Robin]

And I'm still waiting: Why is it ok for Bush to use the names, deaths of our soldiers in justifying that this war continue, yet it's not ok for me to use their names to get the killing stopped?

Wow, are you an egomaniac or what? You seriously think you have a hand in all this, don't you? Contact a psychiatrist, it might help.

Red Robin jumped on my case because I listed the names of our military killed in Iraq. I'm asking her why it's ok for George W. Bush to use their personal letters as well as their deaths to further his politicial agenda, yet not ok for me to use their names. I don't see why you're even bothering to get involved here, unless your conscience is bothering you.

Some how it seems different to me when the President of the most powerful nation in the world mentions a name of one of the troops that has fallen in battle than some old wind bag liberal posting them for shock value in an argument . They deserve more dignity than you and your posts give them.

 

[Disagreeable]

Wow, are you an egomaniac or what? You seriously think you have a hand in all this, don't you? Contact a psychiatrist, it might help.

Red Robin jumped on my case because I listed the names of our military killed in Iraq. I'm asking her why it's ok for George W. Bush to use their personal letters as well as their deaths to further his politicial agenda, yet not ok for me to use their names. I don't see why you're even bothering to get involved here, unless your conscience is bothering you.

Some how it seems different to me when the President of the most powerful nation in the world mentions a name of one of the troops that has fallen in battle than some old wind bag liberal posting them for shock value in an argument . They deserve more dignity than you and your posts give them.

Does the word hypocrite mean anything to you? If you're not familiar with it, look in your mirror for a good example.

Cal posted a list of names of people that died during the Clinton Administration as if Bill Clinton had something to do with their deaths. What about their "dignity"? Did you object to that post? I don't think so. So I posted the names of our military who have died because George W. Bush chose to send them into an unncesssary war and you object? Get over it.

I haven't seen you complain that the Bush Bunch sent too few troops to Iraq (even though professional soldiers told them they needed more), or that they didn't send the armored vehicles, or body armor along with the troops to Iraq. I've complained loud and clear about that because I have the best interests of our troops at heart. You seem to be a Bush groupie. Whatever he does is ok, no matter how it actually affects the soldiers.

 

[jigs]

big difference between the two lists....

one is a list of people killed to silence the illegal acts of a disgusting public figure. lets call them murdered victims

the second list are people who VOLUNTEERED to DEFEND this great nation, who KNOWINGLY went into harms way to protect our freedoms. lets call them fallen heros.

Had Clinton took out Bin Laden during one of the several attacks he launched during his 8 years in office, we would not have the second list. But old slick Willie was too busy padding his wallet and groping women to worry about our soverieng rights.

 

[jigs]

dis wrote
Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Most of the world stood at our side and agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrowing of the Taliban government. What's happening there now? The Bush Administration is trying to turn that war over to NATO! There's no oil there, you see. Osama Bin Laden, the man who planned and executed the attack on 9-11, is still free and probably laughing his behind off. For years one of his recruiting tools has been to forecast that the Great Satan, the US, would invade a small, oil-rich, Arab country for their oil. George W. Bush has made a prophet out of Bin Laden. Our enemies can only be encouraged by the way the few thousand insurgents have held their own against the strongest military power in the world!

holding thier own??? no, we are trying a tactical assult to limit civilian casualties. and the damned press is right there to point out every stray bullet or errant bomb, so the military has to do it's job with one hand behind it's back.

I am all for an out right "cleansing" of the area. tell the press that they are not protected by the troops anymore, and let the troops handle it how ever they see fit....the insurgents will see that we mean business and run


kill them all, let God sort them out !

 

[Anonymous]

I have facts. :lol:

Well, if you have facts, you need to let us hear them. Because this garbage here......

Yep, and I've posted them. He used information from a German source called "Curveball" even though the Germans told him the information was unreliable. He used the "uranimum from Niger" in his State of the Union speech even though our intelligence agencies had told him it wasn't reliable. He used information from a prisoner that the Saddam was involved with terrorists even though the CIA had said they believed the prisoner was telling them what they wanted to hear, not the truth. No, I'm not going out again and look for the reports, but they're online if you're really interested in finding them.

.......is a long way from being a fact. You haven't proven that President Bush knew what he was saying wasn't true. Just because somebody said blah, blah, blah. Doesn't prove anything about what he knew.

As far as I can tell, you have told more lies than the President has. Every time you say that you are the only one here that cares when our troops die....that's just another lie.

 

[mp.freelance]

Every time you say that you are the only one here that cares when our troops die....that's just another lie.

Indeed. If Disagreeable is anywhere near as sanctimonious in person, it's pretty clear this is just a pathetic, lonely individual.

 

[Anonymous]

If Disagreeable is anywhere near as sanctimonious in person......

We should all pray that we never find out. :lol:

 

[Disagreeable]

big difference between the two lists....

one is a list of people killed to silence the illegal acts of a disgusting public figure. lets call them murdered victims

Manure. Not a single one of these deaths was ever shown to be an illegal act in any way conntected to the Clintons.

the second list are people who VOLUNTEERED to DEFEND this great nation, who KNOWINGLY went into harms way to protect our freedoms. lets call them fallen heros.

More manure. The second list is brave Americans who were willing to serve their country and, instead, were served up by George W. Bush to be killed in an unnecessary war. About half of them are State National Guard members. They expected to be fighting fires, stacking up sand bags for floods, helping out hurricane victims, not being sent off for years to a foreign country by an incompetent Commander in Chief.

Had Clinton took out Bin Laden during one of the several attacks he launched during his 8 years in office, we would not have the second list. But old slick Willie was too busy padding his wallet and groping women to worry about our soverieng rights.

And tell me again, X, what does the Iraqi war have to do with Bin Laden?

 

[Disagreeable]

I have facts. :lol:

Well, if you have facts, you need to let us hear them. Because this garbage here......

I have posted links to government reports, news reports, Bush speechs that back up my claims. No, I'm not going to dig them out again. They're all on the 'net. If you have an open mind, go hunting for them.

Yep, and I've posted them. He used information from a German source called "Curveball" even though the Germans told him the information was unreliable. He used the "uranimum from Niger" in his State of the Union speech even though our intelligence agencies had told him it wasn't reliable. He used information from a prisoner that the Saddam was involved with terrorists even though the CIA had said they believed the prisoner was telling them what they wanted to hear, not the truth. No, I'm not going out again and look for the reports, but they're online if you're really interested in finding them.

.......is a long way from being a fact. You haven't proven that President Bush knew what he was saying wasn't true. Just because somebody said blah, blah, blah. Doesn't prove anything about what he knew. [/quote]

So you're defending George Bush by saying he was ignorant of the intelligence information that I've listed above? ROTFLMAO!

As far as I can tell, you have told more lies than the President has. Every time you say that you are the only one here that cares when our troops die....that's just another lie.

I didn't say that. But I believe that I am the only one who has complained that our troops were not given the best equipment. Show me another poster who has complained about sending our troops off shorthanded, without their armored vehicles or body armor. Most others are, like you and mp, Bush groupies that think whatever he wants to do is ok, no matter the cost to our troops.