Cindy Sheehan

I think he should explain it like this that he had a dream and Jesus told him that he has to attack Iraq because in future Iran will develop nuke and try to destroy Israel and he needs a base in middle east.

It will be 2 birds with one stone, explaining both Iraq and Iran. I am sure the religious right and other nut case republicans such as mia, Gtech,... will certainly believe this, specially since occupation order will be directly from Jesus.

 

Pat Robertson told him to Kill Saddam because daddy forgot to in the first Gulf War

 

Some of us are screaming for this. When Clinton enpowered Eschelon, and Carnivore, he was untouchable for serious review in these matters, and set a very bad precedent for all of us to live with today. Now we need the courts to decide not so much whether Bush has been operating within his powers, but if he's been using/abusing them too much; so we can limit the current eves dropping occurring. With wars, we have ends insight, either we win or lose, with current political times, there seems to be wars during peace, "cold war" an example. So expirations need to be set for some procedures, so they might be reviewed and justified.

Get the matter straight, let balance of powers be tested.

 

Do you know where the oil is, gworld? You went to collage supposedly, I'm sure you do!

Where are the WMD?

They are right here, where the NYT said they were. Looted. And in Syria

Bush admitted there was no wmd? I'd love to see your source for that. Don't even try to pawn off that stopping the search is "admitting" there was none. It doesn't work.

No excuses. Not everyone wants the terrorists to win. I've just never figured out why you do

 

This is funny, you guys post the same stuff, just face it, Bush is a disaster, Cheney is a oil criminal that has broke GM & Ford, Exxon just reported the largest profit ever for any corporation...

Get real people, it is not about being right, it is about doing what is right and getting rid of your foolish pride and standing up for the people that work hard to make it!

You know, people that actually have to work for their money and those forgotten people in New Orleans that Bush could not help out....

This nation has been disgraced by Bush and you guys defend that shit, shame on you!

 

Ah, so the key is, being able to make it up as you go along.

So, I could say something like:

John Kerry stole rice from Cambodia and caused their economy to collapse.

Hillary Clinton is a WD-40 criminal that stole the senate election.

Cindy Sheehan's flatulence cased BF Goodrich to have bad tires and everyone knows it.

Something like that?

 

I could say that your babbling when you don't have any defense is quite silly GTech and it is a bad habit of yours, smoke and mirrors don't work GTech, you will have to do a lot better than that crap!

 

Quote: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley

"we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Let's have a poll here in DP, who knows more about national security and WMD, National Security Adviser or corporal Gtech?

 

Well that wasn't nice! I thought the "Hillary Clinton is a WD-40 criminal that stole the senate election." was pretty good!

So what you are saying is, in order to make up really super stupid dumb stuff, I need more tutoring under your wing?

 

Exactly what I thought! So predictable. Bush didn't admit there were no wmd at all. I already knew you lied about it in the past, but I didn't think you'd do it again!

Remind me though, why is that you won't quote the entire article? What's in it that you'd rather people not see? Come on gworld, you can do it!

 

Well listen to this one folks, GM & Ford's problems have nothing to do with the Invasion of Iraq and world record oil prices when the majority of the vehicles they were selling happened to be pickups and SUV's that Americans can't afford to buy since Bush and Cheney rigged the oil markets to provide Exxon with a world record 10.7 Billion dollar quarterly profit, the largest profit for any corporation in the history of the world.....

But that has nothing to do with GM & Ford closing plants......dooming America to more dispair....

Republicans suck America......

 

And you still don't know where the oil is, gworld? Shame on you!

 

Not bad at all! Do you use a content generator to construct the sentences?

 

Construct this GTech...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=GM+Ford+closing+plants&btnG=Google+Search

It was caused by Bush and his oil war!

 

Hmph. So the police released her and stated that she never should have been arrested in the first place.

The story has been minimized - not much play or conversation about it in the media today. Everybody has a blurb, but it's far from the focus. The political talk shows had a hey-day, but it really seems to me that the hosts don't have a problem with her at all, not a big one anyways. It's the callers that go off on her, and I would be surprised if any of them have seen her speak. She's far from a media whore. She's a woman who lost her son in the war and she has every right to speak out, to protest, and yes - even to wear a t-shirt.

What I'm curious about is - Why in the world would anyone show up at the State of the Union address in a t-shirt? Certainly, Cindy's purpose was to promote a response and highlight the blood spilled. But on the other hand - why would a congressman's wife show up in a sweatshirt?!? I didn't see anybody dressed casually at all. I imagine the congressman's wife was a political stunt aimed at minimizing the Sheehan incident - so someone could say "we get rid of anyone wearing propoganda." Bush has a long history of having people with opposing viewpoints removed from his events. I'm not sure if this is a presidential standard, but his actions have been highlighted regularly.

But what would happen if they allowed Cindy's t-shirt in the gallery? It would leave the door open for a gallery full of political t-shirts for every state of the union speech in the future - and regardless of your feelings about this POTUS, that is a very dangerous precident to set.

If you are looking for a reason behind the war - oil and terrorists are the easy answers. Neither of which were excuses anybody used prior to the start of the war. The web of logic is much more complex. Other middle eastern countries were not happy with Saddam or Iraq. We needed the economic boost that war would bring us. The position is strategic for the US. A show of force in the middle east was strategic for the US. Bush wanted to make a name for himself. Bush needed the war for popularity - his was waning quickly prior to 9-11. There literally were 100 solid reasons for going to war with Iraq, and one reason not to that almost nobody cared about when it started. (That reason being that our children would most certainly be killed.)

 

Quote: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley

"we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The admission by the CIA’s top weapons adviser in Iraq, David Kay, that the country possessed no stockpiles of so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) nor related production facilities is a devastating refutation of the lies used by the Bush administration to justify its illegal invasion and occupation.

Prime Minister Tony Blair responded to antiwar critics within his ruling party Tuesday by acknowledging he had been wrong to claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged Monday that he has seen no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam with the al Qaeda network, adding intelligence about Iraq's WMDs was faulty.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. -Bush


Lets have the poll now, who knows more about National security and WMD, ( NAtional security adviser, David Kay, Powell, Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and Bush) or Corporal Gtech?

 

Clinton had protesters removed as well. It's nothing new, or unique to an administration. It was the right thing to do. She didn't belong there. Her 15 minutes of fame are long gone and she is delusional.

The conditions of war were outlined:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

saddam had a choice.

 

This war was nothing but an oil grab and one to establish military bases for a future wider war, now we are going to look at Iran.

If you watched the state of the union address last night Bush sounded just like he did before the Iraq invasion claiming that we must stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

Same Bullshit, different year!

 

gworld, why did you leave out your source? Were you ashamed to include the source of that version of the story?

 

It's like "where's waldo!"

Where's the oil?