Don't Forget

[wakeup]

---about all the evidence of the Bush administration's incompetence.

Remember-- Bush was concentrating intell. on trying to figure how to invade Iraq before 9/11 happened. Intelligence should not have missed the signs of 9/11. Bush is not fighting terrorism-- he is fighting to secure oil.

Delivering the single-most damaging indictment of the president, his former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says the administration was drawing up plans to attack and occupy Iraq the moment it took office. He told "60 Minutes," "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."

O'Neill says that the war was already high on the agenda during the first National Security Council meeting, where the discussion was "all about finding a way to do it." He also told Time, "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

[wakeup]

and don't forget what Richard Clarke had to say about the Bush administration:

CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

[wakeup]

Just to rub it in more, that was Richard Clarke. You know, the guy that admitted that Clinton was much better on terrorism than Bush. If anyone would have an informed opinion on the subject it would be Clarke.

[scrap]

Just like a liberal to reply and reply to themselves all in the span of 45 minutes.

[MO]

And to still think Richard Clarke has any credibility.

[TNRighty]

Don't forget....

That Kerry voted for a nuclear freeze while Reagan was winning the Cold War

That Kerry voted against the first Gulf War

That Kerry has voted against every weapons program that is currently being used to win the war on terror

That Kerry wants to beat terrorism back to "nuissance" status

That Kerry has been on the wrong side of history for the last 20 years.

[wakeup]

Do you honestly think that Bush is the safer choice? I don't think he knows what he is doing.

Bush is a man who doesn't really understand the sacrifices of the troops he ordered to Iraq. He is a man who used his connections to avoid the war in Vietnam.

Kerry served in a war and knows about war. He knows how everything must be done to find diplomatic solutions before we resort to violence- and while the violence is happening.

If Bush was really concerned about terrorism, he would be trying to stop terrorism through other means (ie diplomatically or perhaps confronting countries that actually support terrorists), not invade certain countries in order to secure the oil supply. His psychotic administration doesn't want what's best for the Iraqi people, they want access to their oil-rich country through force and manipulation. Yeah I agree that we are dependent on oil, but his tactics are neither morally just nor wise. The whole situation has backfired and I do not see an eternally grateful Iraq giving us access to their oil. All I see is ten's of thousands of dead Iraqis, 1000+ dead US soldiers and many angry Iraqis. I also don't see how invading Iraq has helped the problem of terrorism.

[groucho]

wakeup said:

Do you honestly think that Bush is the safer choice? I don't think he knows what he is doing.

I also don't see how invading Iraq has helped the problem of terrorism.

Oh, puh-LEEZE!!!!

Since we've been in Iraq, hasn't there been much more terrorist activity centralized THERE, rather than elsewhere?
Ever hear the phrase "moths to a candle?"

If you're still too simple-minded to grasp the obvious, I'll spell it out for you - by taking the fight to them over THERE, we divert their attention AWAY from organizing or executing something over HERE........

As for the casualties of war, can you name ONE war, in the entire history of the world, where there WEREN'T any casualties? Lose the "morally superior," hand-wringing act, pal. It won't play in Peoria!!!

[wakeup]

That's faulty logic. Killing Iraqis for no other reason than taking the fight to a country that had no fight with us to begin with is retarded. Militants will be able to recruit bigtime with this moral blunder, and our country is in more danger now as we have lowered ourselves to the level of terrorism.

[MO]

Apparently, you are too simple minded to get it.

Americans died in our revolution. The Iraqis were living under a government where they could be plucked off the street and tortured. Their daughters could be grabbed and taken to a government rape room. More people died from combat in Detroit in the month of January than did in Iraq.

The moral blunder was a pervert in chief who sat back and did nothing for close to a decade while Americans and American interests were being attacked all over the globe.

[scrap]

wakeup said:

Do you honestly think that Bush is the safer choice? I don't think he knows what he is doing.

Bush is a man who doesn't really understand the sacrifices of the troops he ordered to Iraq. He is a man who used his connections to avoid the war in Vietnam.

Kerry served in a war and knows about war. He knows how everything must be done to find diplomatic solutions before we resort to violence- and while the violence is happening.

If Bush was really concerned about terrorism, he would be trying to stop terrorism through other means (ie diplomatically or perhaps confronting countries that actually support terrorists), not invade certain countries in order to secure the oil supply. His psychotic administration doesn't want what's best for the Iraqi people, they want access to their oil-rich country through force and manipulation. Yeah I agree that we are dependent on oil, but his tactics are neither morally just nor wise. The whole situation has backfired and I do not see an eternally grateful Iraq giving us access to their oil. All I see is ten's of thousands of dead Iraqis, 1000+ dead US soldiers and many angry Iraqis. I also don't see how invading Iraq has helped the problem of terrorism.

Do you honestly think that Kerry is the war hero he proclaims himself to be?
He got into the Swift Boats because they were away from the action.
Whan there mission changed he did all he could to get the hell out of there, including basically self inflicted wounds to cut his tour of duty short.
Then commits treason in his acts with the North Vietnamese.
Yea this is the guy I want to lead our military