These are dangerous and unpredictable times. It's time for partisan politics to be put aside in favour of an objective evaluation of the most important and powerful political office in the world. Now in the spirit of objectivity and lack of partisan politics it seems to me that the Bush Administration is crumbling. It's absolutely imperative that no damage be done to the US political system or it will bode ill for the rest of the world.
Having said that - it's unravelling for the Bush Administration. Their supporters are disappointed, angered, frustrated and are striking out at anything and anyone that provides even the slightest critique.
Look, if you're a Bush supporter try to understand that no-one is taking pleasure from your discomfort. Seriously. You were sucked in but heck that could happen to anyone. Now is the time for the scales to fall from your eyes. Support McCain by all means in his run for the presidency in the future but understand that his current administration is a total and utter failure and is damaging the US and the world.
Sturgis,
I suggest you go back and read your posting where you referred to "communist rags." Your claim you didn't call the Post a "communist rag" is pretty outlandish since you quoted my reference to the Washington Post when I asked you to dispute any facts in it. One can only read that you are claiming that the Washington Post did NOT print real facts and the Post is a "communist rag".
What are the facts the Post got wrong?
Provide us with real facts in support of your statement.
Failing to do that, then you are only whining. You certainly aren't involved in a constructive debate.
goodfielder wrote: You were sucked in but heck that could happen to anyone. Now is the time for the scales to fall from your eyes. Support McCain by all means in his run for the presidency in the future but understand that his current administration is a total and utter failure and is damaging the US and the world.
NO, as much as it may hurt you to hear this I was not sucked into anything.
Vote for McCain? Not in this lifetime.
Damage and failure? Uh, that would be the Clinton years which as you know was the time during which bin Laden began his assualt while Clinton did NOTHING!
Sturgis wrote:parados wrote:Sturgis wrote:More narrow minded assinine liberal crap.
Do you want to point to specifics Sturgis? Or is the peanut gallery all your are capable of?
Bush's statements on Nov 11th were not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They were the same misleading junk that he has always done, tying to things together to give false impressions.
The Washington Post called him on it. I pointed it out. Do you want to point out the errors in the Post piece or can you not do that?
It is senseless to even debate any of this around here because all people want is to do Republican bashing.
When facts (I mean REAL facts, not some communist rags alleged facts) are presented nobody around here wants to see them. I have presented at times but the antagonistic attitude which permeates and pervades here makes it essentially a wasted effort. As the song title went it would be 'One sided conversations with a narrow minded wall' in this case with several narrow minded walls.
Here is what you said Sturgis - Please explain it for those of us that you think have reading comprehension problems. I highlighted what I think is relevent.
Sturgis cannot be specific because Karen Kwiatkowski can be and has been specific. And she is not the only insider to spill the beans. No Bushie can or wants to address the evidence and for good reason. 57% of Americans did not come lightly to the conclusion that Bushie deliberately lied us into war. But they did come to that conclusion. If Sturgis wants to make Bushie's case he'll have to address these charges.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-09.htm
I support the President...perhaps that is because I support our country. Too bad that freedom of speech and other rights have left most persons so intolerant of the truth and lacking of both the ability and the desire to be supportive of the structure which created these feeedoms.
Sturgis, hahaha. Well you support the Presidunce by avoiding substance. Bushie's words ring shallow compared to the evidence of Kiatkowski or Sybl Edmonds of Colleen Rowley or other insiders who witnessed the betrayal. Joey Wilson sure rocked Bushie World and what's funny about that is if they hadn't of attacked the guy he would have faded into oblivion. Attacking Wilson was real stupid strategy.
Sturgis wrote:parados wrote:Sturgis wrote:More narrow minded assinine liberal crap.
Do you want to point to specifics Sturgis? Or is the peanut gallery all your are capable of?
Bush's statements on Nov 11th were not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They were the same misleading junk that he has always done, tying to things together to give false impressions. The Washington Post called him on it. I pointed it out. Do you want to point out the errors in the Post piece or can you not do that?
It is senseless to even debate any of this around here because all people want is to do Republican bashing. When facts (I mean REAL facts, not some communist rags alleged facts) are presented nobody around here wants to see them. I have presented at times but the antagonistic attitude which permeates and pervades here makes it essentially a wasted effort. As the song title went it would be 'One sided conversations with a narrow minded wall' in this case with several narrow minded walls.
tsk tsk sugar booger why so touchy?
Sturgis wrote:I support the President...perhaps that is because I support our country. Too bad that freedom of speech and other rights have left most persons so intolerant of the truth and lacking of both the ability and the desire to be supportive of the structure which created these feeedoms.
You're either with me or against me..... get some new material honey.....
Sturgis wrote:I support the President...perhaps that is because I support our country. Too bad that freedom of speech and other rights have left most persons so intolerant of the truth and lacking of both the ability and the desire to be supportive of the structure which created these feeedoms.
Sturgis, You spout a lot of stuff that sounds so lovely. Too bad you can't back it up with anything. Truth usually requires some supporting evidence. The only one intolerant of truth so far is you. You refuse to show me where the Post got any facts wrong.
Our freedoms were created in part because of a free press. It appears you are not supportive of that structure that helped create our freedoms.
Quote:When facts are presented nobody around here wants to see them.
More of your lovely sounding verbage that doesn't match your actions. You have not presented any facts at all or disputed anything stated by the Post.
You still have not told me how I misread your statements based on what you actually wrote. I am curious as to how you view the English language and the way it references earlier paragraphs. Explain to me how your statement about "communist rags" should not be taken by any reader to reference the Post since that was the ONLY newspaper mentioned in your post by quoting me.
Next up: the Democrats pretend to have brains...
Oh wait a second reality trash-a-vision has not been able to assemble something that unbelievable yet.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:Sturgis wrote:I support the President...perhaps that is because I support our country. Too bad that freedom of speech and other rights have left most persons so intolerant of the truth and lacking of both the ability and the desire to be supportive of the structure which created these feeedoms.
You're either with me or against me..... get some new material honey.....
No can do snookums...after all the truth needs never to be altered.
Sturgis wrote:blueveinedthrobber wrote:Sturgis wrote:I support the President...perhaps that is because I support our country. Too bad that freedom of speech and other rights have left most persons so intolerant of the truth and lacking of both the ability and the desire to be supportive of the structure which created these feeedoms.
You're either with me or against me..... get some new material honey.....
No can do snookums...
after all the truth needs never to be altered.
Now I see why you aren't disputing anything writen by the Post. You don't want to have to alter the truth.
Have you considered changing your moniker to paraDOZE since you seem to doze through the facts no matter how many times they are presented to you?
Seriously though, as stated before I stand by the President and my beliefs. Why is that such a threat to you?
goodfielder wrote:These are dangerous and unpredictable times. It's time for partisan politics to be put aside in favour of an objective evaluation of the most important and powerful political office in the world. Now in the spirit of objectivity and lack of partisan politics it seems to me that the Bush Administration is crumbling. It's absolutely imperative that no damage be done to the US political system or it will bode ill for the rest of the world.
Having said that - it's unravelling for the Bush Administration. Their supporters are disappointed, angered, frustrated and are striking out at anything and anyone that provides even the slightest critique.
Look, if you're a Bush supporter try to understand that no-one is taking pleasure from your discomfort. Seriously. You were sucked in but heck that could happen to anyone. Now is the time for the scales to fall from your eyes. Support McCain by all means in his run for the presidency in the future but understand that his current administration is a total and utter failure and is damaging the US and the world.
If we were "sucked in" then so was McCain. He says the president didn't mislead and the Democrats are being "disingenuous" in saying so.
Is McCain lying, too?
Soon after McCain was soundly put through the ringer on the campaign by the Bush crowd, he was hugging bush on TV. In the end he always can be counted upon to go the party line in the interest of his party despite his brief detours.
Senators Were Told Iraqi Weapons Could Hit U.S.
By John McCarthy
Florida Today
Monday 15 December 2003
Nelson said claim made during classified briefing
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.
Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.
Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.
The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.
Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.
"They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said.
Nelson delivered the news during a half-hour conference call with reporters Monday afternoon. The senator, who is on a seven-nation trade mission to South America, was calling from an airport in Santiago, Chile.
"That's news," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington, D.C.-area military and intelligence think tank. "I had not heard that that was the assessment of the intelligence community. I had not heard that the Congress had been briefed on this."
Since the late 1990s, there have been several reports that Iraq was converting a fleet of Czechoslovakian jet fighters into UAVs, as well as testing smaller drones. And in a speech in Cincinnati last October, Bush mentioned the vehicles. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president said.
Nelson, though, said the administration told senators Iraq had gone beyond exploring and developed the means of hitting the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.
Nelson wouldn't say what the original source of the intelligence was, but said it contradicted other intelligence reports senators had received. He said he wants to find out why there was so much disagreement about the weapons. "If that is an intelligence failure . . . we better find that out so we don't have an intelligence failure in the future."
Pike said any UAVs Iraq might have had would have had a range of only several hundred kilometers, enough to hit targets in the Middle East but not the United States. To hit targets on the East Coast, such drones would have to be launched from a ship in Atlantic. He said it wasn't out of the question for Iraq to have secretly acquired a tramp steamer from which such vehicles could have been launched.
"The notion that someone could launch a missile from a ship off our shores has been on Rummy's mind for years," Pike said, referring to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Sen. Bob Graham, who voted against using military force in Iraq, didn't return phone calls concerning the briefing. Spokespersons for Reps. Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney said neither congressman could say if they had received similar briefings since they don't comment on classified information.
Sturgis wrote:Have you considered changing your moniker to paraDOZE since you seem to doze through the facts no matter how many times they are presented to you?
Good God, that's a good question.
Sturgis, I've yet to see you present any facts. You pledge blind loyalty to Bushie and that seems to all. I'm curious if you are related to Frank Sturgis of "grassy knoll" fame.
