***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 Yes, between Saddam and Al Qaeda, not Saddam and 9/11. Bush said that Hussein and his Iraqi regime have been linked to Al Qaeda in the past (which is completely true), but never said that Hussein had any involvement in 9/11. Think before you speak. 53142[/snapback] - - And the fact that Bush said this after 9-11 doesn't seem to you like he was leading people to make this link? Maybe YOU should think when BUSH speaks. If merely demonstrating a link - something the White House never did, by the way - is sufficient, then we should've bombed Rumsfeld. Or Cheney. Both were tight with Saddam before 9-11. Halliburton UK did tons of business with Saddam during the "embargo." - -- Look, we've beaten that one to death. Just pick one of the twenty-three main justifications and go with that. That's what the White House wanted you to do anyway. I went with the biggest one. The Reuters poll done three months after the war started showed that over half the US thought Saddam was directly connected with the terrorist strikes of 9-11. I noticed that the White House was not quick to point out the fallicy of that belief. They call Kerry a "flip-flopper"? Geesh ... that's like Cheney calling Satan "the devil" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 -- And the fact that Bush said this after 9-11 doesn't seem to you like he was leading people to make this link? Maybe YOU should think when BUSH speaks. If merely demonstrating a link - something the White House never did, by the way - is sufficient, then we should've bombed Rumsfeld. Or Cheney. Both were tight with Saddam before 9-11. Halliburton UK did tons of business with Saddam during the "embargo." - -- Look, we've beaten that one to death. Just pick one of the twenty-three main justifications and go with that. That's what the White House wanted you to do anyway. I went with the biggest one. The Reuters poll done three months after the war started showed that over half the US thought Saddam was directly connected with the terrorist strikes of 9-11. I noticed that the White House was not quick to point out the fallicy of that belief. They call Kerry a "flip-flopper"? Geesh ... that's like Cheney calling Satan "the devil" ... 53155[/snapback] There's very little difference between you inferring he meant something and someone on the other side of the aisle inferring he didn't. You say we've beaten that one to death, yet virtually everytime you post over here it's pretty much the same thing. Practice what you preach, or you're just being a bigger part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Yes, between Saddam and Al Qaeda, not Saddam and 9/11. Bush said that Hussein and his Iraqi regime have been linked to Al Qaeda in the past (which is completely true), but never said that Hussein had any involvement in 9/11. Think before you speak. 53142[/snapback] What part of Bush saying in the debate I didn't want to go to war, they attacked us first, in defending the decision to go to war against Iraq don't you understand. Fortunately, in case Bush thought he could once again slip the Hussein was involved in 9/11 implication into the debate unnoticed, Kerry B word slapped him saying it was Osama Bin Laden, not Hussein who attacked on 9/11. All Bush, caught with his hands in the cookie jar again could say was I know it was Osama on 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 And the fact that Bush said this after 9-11 doesn't seem to you like he was leading people to make this link? Stating fact is stating fact. Bush said that there exists a link between Iraq/Hussein and Al Qauda (which is undeniably true). He never said that Iraq/Hussein was involved with the specific 9/11 attack, and he CERTAINLY never said that "Saddam attacked the Twin Towers." Bottom line, you tried to put words in his mouth, and you got caught in a lie. The Reuters poll done three months after the war started showed that over half the US thought Saddam was directly connected with the terrorist strikes of 9-11. Last I checked, the President is not responsible for ignorant people who form incorrect conclusions based on factual statements he's made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 What part of Bush saying in the debate I didn't want to go to war, they attacked us first, in defending the decision to go to war against Iraq don't you understand. They (Islamic terrorists) attacked us on 9/11, and as a result, war was waged on two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) that are known supporters of Islamic terrorism. Both wars were against supporters of militant Islam, which is what we were attacked by on 9/11. The war we are currently engaged in is one against terror, not against a specific terror network. Every terrorist organization and every nation that supports terrorism is a potential target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 "...don't talk to me about not wanting to vote for a bill that irresponsibly funded body armor and other military support. You were the dumbass who started the damned war and send our military over there WITHOUT IT in the first place." That woulda been great. What a missed opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I'd like to know who doesn't have body armor. When I was on active duty we always had RBA (ranger body armor) or a flack jacket. I've had some friends send me pics from Afghanistan and Iraq. In every pic they were wearing a flack jacket. I wonder if its the support personal ("in the rear with the gear") folks that don't have this equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I wonder if its the support personal ("in the rear with the gear") folks that don't have this equipment. 53502[/snapback] Pretty much, I think. I also dimly recall the body armor in question being some sort of advanced ceramic inserts or additions to your typical flak jackets that was new enough to be not widely available. Arguably, it is an oversight not issuing body armor to the REMFs. In an insurgency campaign, the difference between the "front" and "rear area" are largely a matter of degree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 What part of Bush saying in the debate I didn't want to go to war, they attacked us first, in defending the decision to go to war against Iraq don't you understand. Fortunately, in case Bush thought he could once again slip the Hussein was involved in 9/11 implication into the debate unnoticed, Kerry B word slapped him saying it was Osama Bin Laden, not Hussein who attacked on 9/11. All Bush, caught with his hands in the cookie jar again could say was I know it was Osama on 9/11. 53322[/snapback] woo woo. high fives everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 There's very little difference between you inferring he meant something and someone on the other side of the aisle inferring he didn't. You say we've beaten that one to death, yet virtually everytime you post over here it's pretty much the same thing. Practice what you preach, or you're just being a bigger part of the problem. 53309[/snapback] - -Darin, Darin, Darin ... That's harsh, man. I can understand your being in a bad mood. Your candidate has screwed up everything since day one, and now he's facing someone who's got the fortitude to call him on it. Kerry made Bush look silly in the debate. And let's face it... Bush's entire presidency so far has served as a keen illustration of why it is that we don't give handguns to monkeys ... - --Bush lied to the American people. We're at was as a result. And, yes, that DOES mean enough to me to merit posting on the subject repeatedly. Sorry if that bothers you so much. I suggest you chill out, wait another year, and see if President Kerry can clean up this mess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 --Darin, Darin, Darin ... That's harsh, man. I can understand your being in a bad mood. Your candidate has screwed up everything since day one, and now he's facing someone who's got the fortitude to call him on it. Kerry made Bush look silly in the debate. And let's face it... Bush's entire presidency so far has served as a keen illustration of why it is that we don't give handguns to monkeys ... - --Bush lied to the American people. We're at was as a result. And, yes, that DOES mean enough to me to merit posting on the subject repeatedly. Sorry if that bothers you so much. I suggest you chill out, wait another year, and see if President Kerry can clean up this mess... 53537[/snapback] Nice try, big government fella. Mr. Bush isn't my candidate and never has been. I didn't see any discernible difference between the 2. You feel free to be happy that your guy didn't make as many faces and calling that a win "because." It doesn't matter which of these idiots is elected. America will continue the downward spiral and the transfer of power from the people to the politicians. I don't expect you to be smart enough to understand such a difficult concept, given your penchant for simple regurgitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 It doesn't matter which of these idiots is elected. America will continue the downward spiral and the transfer of power from the people to the politicians. I don't expect you to be smart enough to understand such a difficult concept, given your penchant for simple regurgitation. 53544[/snapback] That's cynical and insulting. You seem to respond to a great deal of my posts - OK, every damn one - by calling me unintelligent. That suggests a lack of reasoned response and shallowness of thought on YOUR part. And if you're so devoid of hope that you're certain America's going down the crapper, then why don't you just move to Alaska or something?!? Oh, wait ... If you can one day respond to even one of my posts without being insulting, then perhaps someone will have an ounce of respect for your opinion. Next ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 --Darin, Darin, Darin ... That's harsh, man. I can understand your being in a bad mood. Your candidate has screwed up everything since day one, and now he's facing someone who's got the fortitude to call him on it. Kerry made Bush look silly in the debate. And let's face it... Bush's entire presidency so far has served as a keen illustration of why it is that we don't give handguns to monkeys ... - --Bush lied to the American people. We're at was as a result. And, yes, that DOES mean enough to me to merit posting on the subject repeatedly. Sorry if that bothers you so much. I suggest you chill out, wait another year, and see if President Kerry can clean up this mess... 53537[/snapback] You're an idiot. Ever hear that before? I deal with this stuff everyday. I don't care if Donald Duck is President as long as we do what we need to do. As far as this subject goes, Kerry has a long way to go to catch Donald Duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 You're an idiot. Ever hear that before? I deal with this stuff everyday. I don't care if Donald Duck is President as long as we do what we need to do. As far as this subject goes, Kerry has a long way to go to catch Donald Duck. 53554[/snapback] I'm an idiot? That's original. Yet for someone who's allegedly NOT an idiot, YOU offer no argument in response. Only an insult, and a lame one at that. You'll have to do much better than that. Next ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I'm an idiot? That's original. Yet for someone who's allegedly NOT an idiot, YOU offer no argument in response. Only an insult, and a lame one at that. You'll have to do much better than that. Next ... 53557[/snapback] I've posted about 3,500 words on this, in as much detail as I can get away with. You should come around more often. I'll try to consolidate to the Reader's Digest version. There are links to not just AQ and Sadaam, but to AQ and the UN. Oil for Food has been tracked back to shell companies that fund AQ, at least a dozen set up by SH's regime. Several in the mid-east, but also several based out of France, Russia and Germany. Khofi's son engineered a lot of the deals. They all have some folks who have made a lot of money off it. All people like you know is the word "Halliburton". I'm not a "Bushyite". I know next to nothing about issues such as economy, affordable drugs, Gay marriage (not that there's anything wrong with that...) We are at the inroads of World War Three. Asymetrical warfare seems to confuse everybody, so, look at it this way. You are now going up against a tremedously well organized and well funded coaltion of varied crime organizations who want to establish a Pan Islamic Caliphate throughout the middle east. Traditionally, the way to strategically deter an enemy is to hold his center of gravities at risk. This is easilly done with folks like N. Korea or Iran, because they are nation states with infrastructure. They get too far out of line, bomb something. The global terrorist network, yes, it is a network, is very distributed. you had five picked up in Lackawana for crying out loud. There's precious little to hold at risk, in the conventional sense. The only thing AQ-and about 2 dozen affilliated groups consider a deterence is fear of failure, the inability to execute. This administration had to learn a lot of stevestojan on the fly and they have done well. What works doesn't make for good sound bites. Kerry is yelling about fire trucks. Fire Trucks aren't going to help anything. You folks never think anything through past the soundbite. Bush can't stand up and say firetrucks aren't going to help, which is the truth, but how will that sound? Now, quote CNN as to how I'm wrong and stupid. BTW, you mentioned the yellowcake in an earlier post. There was a lot more to it than just the yellowcake. I WROTE the OPORD for it's security and removal. Not a "secret" anymore. Made the "news". I thought it was a pretty good plan, if I do say so myself. I, on ocassion do some pretty good work. Didn't get blownup, and it's safely in the US as we speak. Senator Kerry says we don't do anything about that stuff, because we accepted an error in judgement and invaded Iraq. You want to talk counterproliferation? You wanna talk Global War on Terror? Go ahead. I've spent the last couple years hip deep in Homeland Defense, The warplans for Defeating AQ and their buds, and DoD support to Homeland Defense consequence management. I can converse on N. Korea and Iran as well. Stick with football, and gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I've posted about 3,500 words on this, in as much detail as I can get away with. You should come around more often. I'll try to consolidate to the Reader's Digest version. There are links to not just AQ and Sadaam, but to AQ and the UN. Oil for Food has been tracked back to shell companies that fund AQ, at least a dozen set up by SH's regime. Several in the mid-east, but also several based out of France, Russia and Germany. Khofi's son engineered a lot of the deals. They all have some folks who have made a lot of money off it. All people like you know is the word "Halliburton". I'm not a "Bushyite". I know next to nothing about issues such as economy, affordable drugs, Gay marriage (not that there's anything wrong with that...) We are at the inroads of World War Three. Asymetrical warfare seems to confuse everybody, so, look at it this way. You are now going up against a tremedously well organized and well funded coaltion of varied crime organizations who want to establish a Pan Islamic Caliphate throughout the middle east. Traditionally, the way to strategically deter an enemy is to hold his center of gravities at risk. This is easilly done with folks like N. Korea or Iran, because they are nation states with infrastructure. They get too far out of line, bomb something. The global terrorist network, yes, it is a network, is very distributed. you had five picked up in Lackawana for crying out loud. There's precious little to hold at risk, in the conventional sense. The only thing AQ-and about 2 dozen affilliated groups consider a deterence is fear of failure, the inability to execute. This administration had to learn a lot of stevestojan on the fly and they have done well. What works doesn't make for good sound bites. Kerry is yelling about fire trucks. Fire Trucks aren't going to help anything. You folks never think anything through past the soundbite. Bush can't stand up and say firetrucks aren't going to help, which is the truth, but how will that sound? Now, quote CNN as to how I'm wrong and stupid. BTW, you mentioned the yellowcake in an earlier post. There was a lot more to it than just the yellowcake. I WROTE the OPORD for it's security and removal. Not a "secret" anymore. Made the "news". I thought it was a pretty good plan, if I do say so myself. I, on ocassion do some pretty good work. Didn't get blownup, and it's safely in the US as we speak. Senator Kerry says we don't do anything about that stuff, because we accepted an error in judgement and invaded Iraq. You want to talk counterproliferation? You wanna talk Global War on Terror? Go ahead. I've spent the last couple years hip deep in Homeland Defense, The warplans for Defeating AQ and their buds, and DoD support to Homeland Defense consequence management. I can converse on N. Korea and Iran as well. Stick with football, and gun control. 53564[/snapback] Don't worry, Petrino will come back with his typical "my guy was in Vietnam" or any of the other 10-12 standard talking points that his party knows he and the rest of the great unwashed will eat up like the cracker crumbs they so require. Actually, scratch that. He'll say nothing more in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 That's cynical and insulting. You seem to respond to a great deal of my posts - OK, every damn one - by calling me unintelligent. If the shoe fits... That suggests a lack of reasoned response and shallowness of thought on YOUR part. And if you're so devoid of hope that you're certain America's going down the crapper, then why don't you just move to Alaska or something?!? Oh, wait ... Is that your idea of an intelligent response? Last time I checked, Alaska was a part of the United States. In fact, just as much as N.Y., only without the ridiculous taxation and overbearing state/local government. If you can one day respond to even one of my posts without being insulting, then perhaps someone will have an ounce of respect for your opinion. Next ... 53549[/snapback] The minute you post something you think of yourself, I'll be sure to give it the credence it deserves. You have NEVER done that on this board. You are reaping exactly what you sow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 If the shoe fits...Is that your idea of an intelligent response? Last time I checked, Alaska was a part of the United States. In fact, just as much as N.Y., only without the ridiculous taxation and overbearing state/local government. The minute you post something you think of yourself, I'll be sure to give it the credence it deserves. You have NEVER done that on this board. You are reaping exactly what you sow. 53604[/snapback] Hey AD, I give you credit for posting your own thoughts, but in the end, the only thoughts you give us is that we are lemmings, kool-aid drinkers, or now "the great unwashed" (that is a good one) for listnening to anyone, and for having an opinion on any topic. We know that you think we are all silly for taking a stand on anything, and that there is no reason to care, since there is no difference between the two parties (I mostly agree with you on that), but what is it that motivates you to want to keep telling us that, so endlessly? I would think, for your own sake, it would be a pretty tiring and monotonous exercise in futility. You keep telling us we are fools, yet we keep posting away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I've posted about 3,500 words on this, in as much detail as I can get away with. You should come around more often. I'll try to consolidate to the Reader's Digest version. There are links to not just AQ and Sadaam, but to AQ and the UN. Oil for Food has been tracked back to shell companies that fund AQ, at least a dozen set up by SH's regime. Several in the mid-east, but also several based out of France, Russia and Germany. Khofi's son engineered a lot of the deals. They all have some folks who have made a lot of money off it. All people like you know is the word "Halliburton". I'm not a "Bushyite". I know next to nothing about issues such as economy, affordable drugs, Gay marriage (not that there's anything wrong with that...) We are at the inroads of World War Three. Asymetrical warfare seems to confuse everybody, so, look at it this way. You are now going up against a tremedously well organized and well funded coaltion of varied crime organizations who want to establish a Pan Islamic Caliphate throughout the middle east. Traditionally, the way to strategically deter an enemy is to hold his center of gravities at risk. This is easilly done with folks like N. Korea or Iran, because they are nation states with infrastructure. They get too far out of line, bomb something. The global terrorist network, yes, it is a network, is very distributed. you had five picked up in Lackawana for crying out loud. There's precious little to hold at risk, in the conventional sense. The only thing AQ-and about 2 dozen affilliated groups consider a deterence is fear of failure, the inability to execute. This administration had to learn a lot of stevestojan on the fly and they have done well. What works doesn't make for good sound bites. Kerry is yelling about fire trucks. Fire Trucks aren't going to help anything. You folks never think anything through past the soundbite. Bush can't stand up and say firetrucks aren't going to help, which is the truth, but how will that sound? Now, quote CNN as to how I'm wrong and stupid. BTW, you mentioned the yellowcake in an earlier post. There was a lot more to it than just the yellowcake. I WROTE the OPORD for it's security and removal. Not a "secret" anymore. Made the "news". I thought it was a pretty good plan, if I do say so myself. I, on ocassion do some pretty good work. Didn't get blownup, and it's safely in the US as we speak. Senator Kerry says we don't do anything about that stuff, because we accepted an error in judgement and invaded Iraq. You want to talk counterproliferation? You wanna talk Global War on Terror? Go ahead. I've spent the last couple years hip deep in Homeland Defense, The warplans for Defeating AQ and their buds, and DoD support to Homeland Defense consequence management. I can converse on N. Korea and Iran as well. Stick with football, and gun control. 53564[/snapback] WHERE'S OSAMA??? Don't we get to pack up and go home from the war on terror as soon as he's caught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 You keep telling us we are fools, yet we keep posting away... dry.gif You kinda answered yourself. Just reverse things a bit. You keep posting away, and he keeps telling you your fools. Maybe if you all didn't keep saying the same stuff over and over and over he might have something different to add to it. And Petrino...I suggest BiB has really hit the nail on the head here, and that if America's security is a priority with you, you may want to rethink your candidate because HIS plan is to pull us out of Iraq (exactly what the terrorist network wants) and begin unilateral talks with North Korea, and both concepts are a recipe for disaster. I think you should also heed his comments regarding WHO was involved with Hussein prior to our invasion...and then do a bit of cross-referencing of that list (France, Germany, et al) with who was against us invading Iraq. They were left with millions of dollars in unpaid bills, and to support the war was not an option for them. So when you iterate Kerry's talking points, it kinda stands to reason that you're gonna get bombarded not with alternate talking points, but with facts. And you know what they say about facts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts