Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40726
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I forgot, you excused Clinton for voting for the war by saying she didnt have all the intel either, but even Clinton is claiming she had a hands on approach to intel while being first lady.
I forgot that you have more evidence then Senator Clinton.
You have a very bad habit of telling LIES about things I've said.
Either show me ANYWHERE I've EVER said ANYTHING about Clinton's war vote or would you prefer to let your LIE stand as it is?
And please, so you don't misinterpret, let me make it clear that I am saying unequivocally you are telling LIES.
Bush has what to do with my post???? Even IF he did call them he also forbid photographing the returning heroes IF they happened to be in a coffin...that's NOT support.
Yes, when you minimize the sacrifices these people have made then you don't CARE....no way around that. It's IS a HUGE number for a war that never should've started.
AND since most conservatives brag about what a great "leader" bush is, what a "decider" he is, how he is the Commander in Cheif..then HE is rsponsible for starting the war. He could've vetoed the congressional vote...he didn't.
It was planned long before 9/11 and he USED that tragedy to further the agenda.....
WRONG.. ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG!!..
Who minimized the sacrafices these people have made? Pointing out that the number of casulties is not huge.. is not minimizing those who sacraficed.. PERIOD..
Why would he veto a congressional vote that gave him WHAT HE WANTED? Hello? Are you even following along with the conversation? No.. you'd rather pretend I said things that I didnt say.
NEVER, EVER, EVER, HAVE I EVER, EVER, SAID THAT BUSH HOLDS NO BLAME WHAT SO EVER.. Stop pretending like I did.. I stated, numerous times, that he wanted to invade, wanted, and needed authorization of Congress, AND CONGRESS WILFULLY GAVE HIM THIS AUTHORIZATION, knowing VERY CLEARLY what he wanted to do.
This cant be that difficult to follow along.. You liberals are completely humorous.. You stand there and blame Bush.. Completely ignoring the thousands of other people that took part in this big play, that gave him the authorization to do EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED.
Rather then sit there and add Congress into the mix, blaming a Republican Congress, you go and completely change the argument to Bush, Bush, Bush.. even though the laws very clearly do not give him carte blanche to do what he wants. Why dont you bring in Congress? ooh, I got it.. because your all trying to get people to forget that Clinton also authorized the war.
If Bush did what he wanted without authorization, he'd be on trial for treason, and while that might make some of you happy, he very clearly isnt on trial... Why? Because he did not violate the laws and received the authorization he wanted/needed.
Spot on. It was the same crap with the draft during the Viet-Nam Era. The privileged and politically connected, like Dubya, got draft exemptions or served in state side units. The unprivileged and unconnected, including 30% of US troops who were black, went to Viet-Nam and got themselves killed.
I see you forgot to include Clinton in your posting of those who are connected and avoided the draft.. Must have been an oversight..
So because you served in Viet-Nam, you have blanket right to just say that people said things that they didnt say (justifies the casualties in the Middle East) to make up an argument?
By the way, I was in Kindergarden when the war ended, so unless your now proposing a draft for 5 year olds.. I'm not sure where your headed..
You just lucked out. Internet Explorer lost my "reply to you post" page. Trust me, it was not complimentary!
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Osama Bin Laden was not used as a reason to invade Iraq.. stating that was a reason does not contribute to the argument because even Clinton when voted yes she did so knowing that it was related to 9/11.
.
In another thread you posted:
"He (Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. "Hillary Clinton 10/10/2002..
"He (Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. "Hillary Clinton 10/10/2002..
Which is it? related to or not related to 9/11?
Or does it depend on the way the wind's blowing?
Mis-key.. you know darn well that she voted for the war, with her knowing that there was no evidence that al-Quaeda and Iraq were not linked. We dont need to go through the whole.. Pentagon acknowledges there was no link thread again do we?
Her own speech during her vote for the war, acknowledged a lack of a link.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Mis-key.. you know darn well that she voted for the war, with her knowing that there was no evidence that al-Quaeda and Iraq were not linked. We dont need to go through the whole.. Pentagon acknowledges there was no link thread again do we?
Her own speech during her vote for the war, acknowledged a lack of a link.
Given your habit of confusing what I've said with what you think I've said I really have no idea anymore of what your claims may be.
Given your habit of confusing what I've said with what you think I've said I really have no idea anymore of what your claims may be.
Thats ok.. You can take your alzheimers medication tonight and we can start again tomorrow. Perhapse one day you'll realise that the President isnt a king.. He actually does need to answer to laws, Congress, and the people.. Until then, this countries problems are caused by way more then just the president, even if you dont understand that.
Thats ok.. You can take your alzheimers medication tonight and we can start again tomorrow. Perhapse one day you'll realise that the President isnt a king.. He actually does need to answer to laws, Congress, and the people..
Perhaps one day the president will learn that as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
