On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:04:35 CST, Chris Morton <cmorton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>..because Bush was ramping up for Iraq and needed another excuse to
>>put together more forces. C'mon...
>
>But either there were enough troops with Special Forces, Delta and SEALs
or
>there WEREN'T. Pick ONE
...we're fighting the wrong fight. Bush said it himself early on. He
also said he wouldn't use troops for "nation-building". And then he
turned right around and committed large numbers of troops and we're
"nation-building" in Iraq.
>>..I don't deny that I dislike Bush intensely. He lied and cheated his
>>way into office and has done damage to this country that will take
>>years (many) to make right...if ever. But the fact remains that Iraq
>>had little or nothing to do with the terrorists.
>
>What you're doing is mimicking the Republicans' least credible conspiracy
>theories about Clinton. It didn't win them any credibility, and it's not
>winning you any either.
...I'm not lying, but the Republicans are. The credibility attached to
the facts will speak for themselves...
>Bush no more "cheated" than Clinton did when he profited from P*****'s
dilution
>of Bush Sr.'s voter base. Clinton won and the Republicans had to get
over it.
>W won and you have to get over it. Well actually you don't HAVE to, but
he's
>there regardless.
...time will tell. There are ongoing investigations in Ohio and
Florida over voter fraud and many, many irregularities. It's already
been proven that the touch screen voting machines can he hacked
easily...guess who placed them in Florida...(hint: his last name is
the same as the Prez...). He also did his level best to disrupt things
in 2K. We can't get rid of Bush now, but we can point to how he was
elected and prevent it from happening again.
>>..prove the ties. I'm semi-kidding because there weren't any. It's
>>like the WMD...just another lie to get us into Iraq.
>
>We know that there were al Qaeda people there, and that there was
cooperation.
>Saddam didn't CONTROL bin Laden, but then FDR, Stalin and Churchill
didn't
>control each other either.
...hell, there are al Quaida people in the US. Maybe it's all been a
plot by Bushandco to retain their ill gotten gains...(which is about
as logical as your Stalin, FDR and Churchill references).
>>..Clinton is a proven liar, what more do you need? The other two,
>
>He's a proven liar in a civil suit regarding ***ual harassment. I'd
really like
>to see your evidence that he lied about Saddam Hussein. NOBODY seems to
be
>claiming THAT.
...if he lied about one he could be lying about the other. Like Bush's
lies, once you start and are caught...very little else you say is
taken at face value.
>>..I expected him to lead. It's what he's being paid to do. He isn't a
>
>Which is exactly what he did. Should he have just started running around
>screaming "It's a cookbook, it's a cookbook!"?
>
>What exactly did Clinton do immediately following ALL of the terrorist
attacks
>during HIS presidency? Hell, in Somalia, he wouldn't even provide the
troops
>with the armored sup****t they needed. The result was of course
"Blackhawk
>Down".
...and it hasn't changed.
|
