Why Bush Should be Impeached

[aikido7]

Whether it's "commie" or a "smilie," both are shorthand for A FAILURE OF RATIONAL INTELLECT.

[Holly]

I take it that the only credible source you'd accept would be a publication which is a member of the Marxist Media.

You might be interested in reading this "Open letter to Congress" from eleven former intelligence officers:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2005/07/intlet.pdf

[simply one]

For the purposes of this thread, "commie" has been redefined as "Anyone who disagrees with any part of the Bush administration or its policy" and/or "anyone who advocates caring about others" and/or "anyone who takes into consideration more of the world than just the USA"


Thankfully, we will always have BB, OF, and Frank to point out all the despicable "commies" on this thread!

[Holly]

Read their lips: (http://www.allhatnocattle.net/rogers7185.jpg)

:ha:

[Frank Ernest]

Whether it's "commie" or a "smilie," both are shorthand for A FAILURE OF RATIONAL INTELLECT.
:darwinsm:

Another mask for fear and rage.

[Frank Ernest]

For the purposes of this thread, "commie" has been redefined as "Anyone who disagrees with any part of the Bush administration or its policy" and/or "anyone who advocates caring about others" and/or "anyone who takes into consideration more of the world than just the USA"


Thankfully, we will always have BB, OF, and Frank to point out all the despicable "commies" on this thread!
Why, :o thank you, simpleton!

[BillyBob]

For the purposes of this thread, "commie" has been redefined as "Anyone who disagrees with any part of the Bush administration or its policy" and/or "anyone who advocates caring about others" and/or "anyone who takes into consideration more of the world than just the USA"

:Commie:


Thankfully, we will always have BB, OF, and Frank to point out all the despicable "commies" on this thread!




I see one now!

[aikido7]

Kinda makes you wish the wall was still up and we knew who our enemies were, huh?

Yer so cute when you're nostalgic...

[aikido7]

YEAH!

:darwinsm:

http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/americathebeautiful.html

...America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
Frankie, 'Merica don't HAVE no flaws!!!. Th' dayam commies are th' ones who got no "self control"! An' the LAW--the LAW!--is what I say it is!

[Skeptic]

Kinda makes you wish the wall was still up and we knew who our enemies were, huh?

Yer so cute when you're nostalgic... One of BillyBob's favorite songs:

Boy the way Glen Miller played
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made,
Those were the days.

And you knew who you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days.


I bet he even knows the chords to it on his guitar!

[aikido7]

I bet he even knows the chords to it on his guitar!Skeptic, do you think he can sing it like Maureen Stapleton?

[Skeptic]

Cheney Wasn’t Involved Either. Right. (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0720-21.htm)

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, do you think he can sing it like Maureen Stapleton? I bet he could come close.

Hey, BillyBob! .... Sing it!!

:guitar:

[aikido7]

Thank you, President Bush: Your Service to this Nation is Remarkable. Your Ability to Consider Consequences and Do the Best for America After 9/11 is Astounding!


BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 19 - A working draft of Iraq's new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women's rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.

The document's writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.

The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not "violate Shariah," or Koranic law.

The Americans and secular Iraqis banished such explicit references to religious law from the interim constitution adopted early last year.

The draft chapter, circulated discreetly in recent days, has ignited outrage among women's groups, which held a protest on Tuesday morning in downtown Baghdad at the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by American marines in April 2003.

One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion.

Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families' permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives' presence.

Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge.

If adopted, the shift away from the more secular and egalitarian provisions of the interim constitution would be a major victory for Shiite clerics and religious politicians, who chafed at the Americans' insistence that Islam be designated in the interim constitution as just "a source" of legislation. Several writers of the new constitution say they intend, at the very least, to designate Islam as "a main source" of legislation.

By rough count, nearly 200 women and men showed up in the fiery heat to hand out fliers and wave white banners in a throng of traffic. "We want to be equal to everybody - we want human rights for everybody," read one slogan. The demonstration came hours before two Sunni Arabs involved in writing the constitution were fatally shot near a Baghdad restaurant, threatening to throw the drafting process into turmoil.

"We want a guarantee of women's rights in the new constitution," said Hannah Edwar, an organizer of the protest. "We're going to meet with the constitutional committee and make our thoughts known."

A dozen women, some sheathed in full-length black robes, showed up to denounce Ms. Edwar's protest. They said they were followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the fundamentalist Shiite cleric who has led two rebellions against the Americans.

American and Iraqi officials say that several draft chapters of the constitution are floating around Baghdad and that no final language has been agreed on. Changes can still be made before Aug. 15, the deadline for the National Assembly to approve a draft. Protests by women and relatively secular blocs on the constitutional committee, like the Kurds, may force Shiite members to tone down the religious language.

"Some of the points regarding women's rights in this chapter are still to be reviewed," said Mariam Arayess, a religious Shiite on the committee.

Ms. Arayess said she believed that the draft was the most recent working version, and that it had fairly generous provisions for equal rights. She is one of fewer than 10 women on the 71-member drafting committee.

The chapter has 27 articles, most of which have relatively liberal provisions aimed at ensuring various civil rights. The first says that "all Iraqis are equal before the law" and that "equal opportunities are guaranteed for all citizens according to the law." The final article forbids censorship of the press.

References to Islam and Shariah appear in a few places. One clause says Iraqis will enjoy all rights stated in "international treaties and conventions as long as they do not contradict Islam." Such language is accepted by many Iraqis, including moderates, who say Islam is a vital foundation for the country.

But women's groups are incensed by Article 14, which would repeal a relatively liberal personal status law enacted in 1959 after the British-backed monarchy was overthrown by secular military officers. That law remained in effect through the decades of Mr. Hussein's rule.

The law used Shariah to adjudicate personal and family matters, but did it in as secular a manner as possible, pulling together the most liberal interpretations of Koranic law from the main Shiite and Sunni sects and stitching them together into one code.

Critics of the draft proposal say that in addition to restricting women's rights, it could also deepen the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites. The draft also does not make clear what would happen in cases where the husband is from one sect and the wife from another.

Religious Shiite politicians tried once before, in December 2003, to abolish the 1959 law. As is happening now, women's groups and secular female politicians took to the streets.

Faced with the mini-rebellion, L. Paul Bremer III, then the effective American proconsul of Iraq, rebuffed the move, to the anger and dismay of many religious Shiites.

"We don't want to use separate Sunni or Shiite laws," said Dohar Rouhi, president of the Association of Women Entrepreneurs. "We want a law that can be applied to everyone. We want justice for women."

A Westerner familiar with the writing of the constitution said that when he saw a draft of the civil rights section less than a week ago, it did not contain the sweeping language on personal status law. In that version, he said, most measures - even those citing Shariah - were not as severe as they could have been.

"Compared to what some of the conservative Shiites were pushing, the glass is half full," said the Westerner, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, because he did not want to appear to be interfering in a sovereign Iraqi process.

He said there was some cause for alarm, though, pointing to a proposal to phase out a measure in the interim constitution requiring that a quarter of parliamentary seats go to women.

Ms. Arayess, the Shiite drafter, said some of the writers were considering keeping the quota for the next two terms of the parliament before allowing it to lapse. After that, she said, women should be able to stand on their own.

_______________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/international/middleeast/20women.html&OQ=eiQ3D5094Q26enQ3D09d840d1e4d06041Q26hpQ3DQ26exQ 3D1121832000Q26partnerQ3DhomepageQ26pagewantedQ3Dp rint&OP=4822394bQ2FpQ27B1pQ3Bn5Q5EdnnzqpqRRVpRQ23pqRpQ7 BmzBdm6zQ7Bnm6jpgQ7BQ3BQ3BjBB6Q5EzpqRQ27ngBmrJzgj

[Frank Ernest]

Frankie, 'Merica don't HAVE no flaws!!!. Th' dayam commies are th' ones who got no "self control"! An' the LAW--the LAW!--is what I say it is!
:darwinsm: :dizzy:

[On Fire]

My response is even funnier. :first:
Not by a long shot.

[BillyBob]

One of BillyBob's favorite songs:

Boy the way Glen Miller played
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made,
Those were the days.

And you knew who you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days.

I never knew what the second to last line was till now. Thanks Skeppie.


I bet he even knows the chords to it on his guitar!

Of course! :guitar:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic, I've always had a thing for Maureen Stapleton! :cloud9:


I know what you mean, some times I like to dress up and pretend I'm her. Hey, maybe we should get together soon...if you know what I mean. :Shimei:


:flamer:

[On Fire]

Daily Impeachment Check: Not Today, commies!

[Frank Ernest]

:flamer:
:darwinsm: Hey! I think I just rented some space to those guys! :shocked:

[BillyBob]

You need to rent them some space in Canada!

[Frank Ernest]

You need to rent them some space in Canada!
:darwinsm: I'll check the Louisville properties. Close enough.

[Gerald]

Not by a long shot.I thought it was funny, and since my opinion on the matter is the only one of any worth...

(Yes, OF, I did just say your opinion is worthless... :p)

[Skeptic]

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy check: No, ... not yet!

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop deaths: 1,771
Unnecessary U.S. Wounded In Action: 13,189
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 22,850 - could be far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - could be far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

[On Fire]

I thought it was funny, and since my opinion on the matter is the only one of any worth...

(Yes, OF, I did just say your opinion is worthless... :p)
Hmmm...erotic dreams about cattle prods, delusions of grandeur.....me thinks someone is headed for the looney bin. :kookoo:

[On Fire]

Number of ruthless dictators in the world: one less, thanks to GW

Number of commies who regularly post in this thread: 2

[Skeptic]

Number of ruthless dictators in the world: one less, thanks to GW
Number of ruthless Iraqi dictators, who were not a threat: 1

Number of ruthless Iraqi dictators, who had no real ties with al-Qaeda: 1

Number of ruthless Iraqi dictators, who hated Osama Bin Laden: 1

Number of ruthless Iraqi dictators, who did not have to be removed from power so urgently that we had to invade Iraq, killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process (thanks to GW): 1

Number of ruthless Iraqi dictators, who did not have to be removed from power so urgently that we had to invade Iraq, killing our brave troops in the process (thanks to GW): 1

Number of commies who regularly post in this thread: 2 Number of fascists who regularly post in this thread: Several

[Gerald]

Hmmm...erotic dreams about cattle prods, delusions of grandeur.....me thinks someone is headed for the looney bin. :kookoo:You're convinced that God thinks you're special and you accuse me of harboring delusions.

That's rich. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

You're convinced that God thinks you're special and you accuse me of harboring delusions.

That's rich. :chuckle: :darwinsm:

[On Fire]

Number of impeachments since this thread started:

0

[Skeptic]

Number of impeachments since this thread started:

0 Number of right-wingers controlling Congress who would ever allow impeachment hearings:

0

The question is NOT will Bush be impeached, but SHOULD he be impeached! This thread has presented plenty of rational reasons Bush should be impeached.

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

Number of right-wingers controlling Congress who would ever allow impeachment hearings:

0



Yep, Conservatives are in the majority, Skeppie. :banana:

[On Fire]

Daily Impeachment Check: NOT TODAY, COMMIES!

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: Our tax dollars in action:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=1307

[BillyBob]

'What did he know and when did he know it!!!' :sibbie:

[simply one]

So..."Freedom" marched into Iraq, in promise of giving them a wonderful "Democracy". Now the Iraqis are writing up a constitution based heavily on Koranic Law. So, our invasion did lots of good! Its taking a secualr government and turning it theocratic, and making the similarities between Iran and Iraq a lot more than just the first 3 letters...

cause Freedom is marching.

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,773
Unnecessary U.S. Wounded In Action: 13,189
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 22,850 - could be far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - could be far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY GLOBAL "War on Terrorism" CHECK --

Annual International Terrorist Attacks:

2005 -- ?
2004 -- 651
2003 -- 208 .... March, 2003 - Bush's invasion of Iraq
2002 -- 205
2001 -- 348 .... October 2001- Invasion of Afghanistan
2000 -- 426
1999 -- 392
1998 -- 242
1997 -- 304
1996 -- 296
1995 -- 440
1994 -- 321
1993 -- 431
1992 -- 364
1991 -- 567
1990 -- 456

Sources:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10235.htm
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1999/review.html
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1998/review.html
http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm

Winning the "War on Terrorism"?: No, ... not yet!

[BillyBob]

-- DAILY GLOBAL "War on Terrorism" CHECK --

Annual International Terrorist Attacks:

2005 -- ?
2004 -- 651
2003 -- 208 .... March, 2003 - Bush's invasion of Iraq
2002 -- 205
2001 -- 348 .... October 2001- Invasion of Afghanistan
2000 -- 426
1999 -- 392
1998 -- 242
1997 -- 304
1996 -- 296
1995 -- 440
1994 -- 321
1993 -- 431
1992 -- 364
1991 -- 567
1990 -- 456




Thanks Skeppie, you just proved that our presense in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the reason we are being terrorized, contrary to what the democommies would have you believe. Keep up the good work.

[Skeptic]

Thanks Skeppie, you just proved that our presense in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the reason we are being terrorized, contrary to what the democommies would have you believe. Keep up the good work. There were more terrorist attacks in the year immediately following Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq than during any year since 1990. How do you arrive at the conclusion that our presence in Iraq is not correlated with the dramatic increase in terrorism?

[BillyBob]

The year we invaded Iraq had the second lowest incidents of terrorism, preceded only by the previous year when we invaded Afghanistan. By your chart, our invasion of terrorist sponsoring countries is directly responsible for a dramatic decrease of terrorism and the lowest rate of terrorism in 15 years.

[Skeptic]

The year we invaded Iraq had the second lowest incidents of terrorism, preceded only by the previous year when we invaded Afghanistan. By your chart, our invasion of terrorist sponsoring countries is directly responsible for a dramatic decrease of terrorism and the lowest rate of terrorism in 15 years. By my chart, the invasion of Afghanistan correlated with a temporary decrease in terrorist acts, but Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq was followed by the HIGHEST rate of terrorism in 15 years!!

[BillyBob]

By my chart, the invasion of Afghanistan correlated with a temporary decrease in terrorist acts,

:darwinsm:


but Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq was followed by the HIGHEST rate of terrorism in 15 years!!

Do you count the bumbling attempt of those idiots in London yesterday? :darwinsm:

Look Skeptic, we are at war with these fascists, of course they are going to strike as often as they can but if you wanna blame Bush for terrorists attacks, you're gonna have to invent a time machine and send him back to the 1990's. Interestingly you blame Bush for terrorism, but don't credit him for the 2 years in which terrorism was cut in half and those are the same first 2 years we seriously started fighting global terrorism.

Not very objective of you, my little [extremely] partisan friend. :nono:

[Skeptic]

Do you count the bumbling attempt of those idiots in London yesterday? The figures for 2005 are not yet in.

Look Skeptic, we are at war with these fascists, of course they are going to strike as often as they can ... Following 9/11, the world was generally with the U.S. This translated into fewer terrorist attacks. Following Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq, the world was generally against the U.S. This has translated into more terrorist attacks. It only stands to reason that the more anti-American hatred there is in the world, the more acts of terrorism there will be against American interests and our allies.

... but if you wanna blame Bush for terrorists attacks, you're gonna have to invent a time machine and send him back to the 1990's. I only blame Bush for a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks. It is reasonable to assume that, if Bush had not unnecessarily invaded Iraq, unjustly killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, there would not have been such a dramatic increase in global terrorism.

Interestingly you blame Bush for terrorism, but don't credit him for the 2 years in which terrorism was cut in half and those are the same first 2 years we seriously started fighting global terrorism. Between September 2001 and March 2003, the U.S. was making progress in fighting terrorism. Then, with the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, Bush blew it big time!!

[BillyBob]

Following 9/11, the world was generally with the U.S. This translated into fewer terrorist attacks.

I see, so you are saying that after 9-11, the terrorists were on our side and decreased terrorism? You've got to be kidding me, there is no way you are serious.

Following Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq,

Which produced the second lowest yearly rate of terrorism in 15 years.

the world was generally against the U.S. This has translated into more terrorist attacks.

Oh, so it is the world who is perpetrating these terrorist attacks? :darwinsm:

It only stands to reason that the more anti-American hatred there is in the world, the more acts of terrorism there will be against American interests and our allies.

There was anti-American hatred long before Bush was ever elected, and a lot more terrorist attacks. The first 3 years of the Clinton Presidency saw 1192 terrorist attacks. The first 3 years of the Bush Presidencey saw 761 terrorist attacks. Still wanna blame Bush? Show me the time machine he used.

I only blame Bush for a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks.

You blame Bush for EVERYTHING!!

It is reasonable to assume that, if Bush had not unnecessarily invaded Iraq, unjustly killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, there would not have been such a dramatic increase in global terrorism.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be funding terrorism and butchering Iraqi's.

Between September 2001 and March 2003, the U.S. was making progress in fighting terrorism. Then, with the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, Bush blew it big time!!

It shows that we are effective and the terrorists know it. Oh, and who are the terrorists in Iraq targeting???
:sozo: IRAQI'S :doh:

[simply one]

I see, so you are saying that after 9-11, the terrorists were on our side and decreased terrorism? You've got to be kidding me, there is no way you are serious.

BillyBob, please. The terrorists were not on our sides, and we all know that. BUT the majority of the world was, and the terrorists knew that further attacks on America directly follow 9/11 would anger not just the US, but much of the world.

Which produced the second lowest yearly rate of terrorism in 15 years.

...which then produced a spike to over 650 terrorist attacks the following year

Oh, so it is the world who is perpetrating these terrorist attacks? :darwinsm:

Well, these terrorists must live SOMEWHERE in the world...

There was anti-American hatred long before Bush was ever elected, and a lot more terrorist attacks. The first 3 years of the Clinton Presidency saw 1192 terrorist attacks. The first 3 years of the Bush Presidencey saw 761 terrorist attacks. Still wanna blame Bush? Show me the time machine he used.

Soooo... you try to draw figures out of context? well, how about the fact that under Bush's watch, during the WAR ON TERROR, there were 651 attacks? The most in the past fifteen years, half as many as during Clinton's first THREE years (when we were NOT fight the "War On Terror"), and only around a hundred less than the preceding THREE years.... And you claim that Bush's unjust invasion of Iraq, and the neglection of security had NOTHING to do with this immense spike?:rolleyes:


You blame Bush for EVERYTHING!!

Don't give the Prez too much credit! We only blame him for the things for which he is responsible. Such as the sudden spike in international terror...

If Bush had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be funding terrorism and butchering Iraqi's.

Except:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html):think:

It shows that we are effective and the terrorists know it. Oh, and who are the terrorists in Iraq targeting???
:sozo: IRAQI'S :doh:

Yes, so, they are beign worse than Saddam! The terrorist in Iraq are butchering the Iraqi people by the hundreds, and why? Because the US of A invaded, inciting the terrorists, and dissolving Iraqi security, allowing the terrorists to enter the country in the first place!:doh:


The logic on this thread is quite interesting. A tripling of internation terrorist attacks, coinciding with a globally disliked invasion of Iraq, which gave fuel to muslim extremists, all during the "War On Terror", has nothing to do with Bush; while terrorism in the early 90s has EVERYTHING to do with Clinton? What an amazingly illogical deduction, my dear Watson! :BRAVO:

[aikido7]

The logic on this thread is quite interesting. A tripling of internation terrorist attacks, coinciding with a globally disliked invasion of Iraq, which gave fuel to muslim extremists, all during the "War On Terror", has nothing to do with Bush; while terrorism in the early 90s has EVERYTHING to do with Clinton? What an amazingly illogical deduction, my dear Watson! They are only too familiar with their "logic," simply one. They are in bed with it everynight so they have to defend its decrepit butt during the day. Their right hand definitely knows what their left hand is up to!

[Skeptic]

I see, so you are saying that after 9-11, the terrorists were on our side and decreased terrorism? You've got to be kidding me, there is no way you are serious. The horror of 9/11 sent shockwaves throughout the world. Most Islamic governments and their citizens were outraged that fellow Muslims could do such a thing. This atmosphere was not conducive to terrorist recruitment. Terrorist acts decreased.

Then, when Bush unnecessarily invaded Iraq, this galvanized many Muslims who would not have otherwise resorted to terrorism. Governments around the globe, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, condemned Bush's outrageous invasion. Muslims were emboldened by the anti-American sentiments in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. This dramatic increase in anti-Americanism resulted in a dramatic jump in recruitment of new terrorists and formation of new terrorist groups.

You talk about terrorists as if they were born that way. The reality is that many of today's terrorists were not terrorists after 9/11, but became terrorists after Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion of Iraq! People don't become terrorists because they simply like killing people. In their own misguided way, they see acts of terrorism as the only way they can influence an apparently hopeless situation. They know that the U.S. has the wealth, political influence and military might to do what it damn well pleases. So they they do what they can to disrupt this wealth and power. They also do what they do in order to instill fear in those who might otherwise be motivated to cooperate with the U.S. and their allies.

Which produced the second lowest yearly rate of terrorism in 15 years. In the months following Bush's unnecessary invasion, would-be terrorists were waiting for the dust to settle and were gearing up for their attacks. Then, we had Abu Gharib, no WMDs found in Iraq, and shoot-first-ask-questions-later tactics by the so-called U.S. and British "liberators." And, in 2004, would-be terrorists had had enough and did what they thought was right and necessary to effect change.

All many of them have left is their craving for vengeance. They view themselves as freedom fighters using age-old gorilla tactics and time-tested terrorist acts. They view themselves as the "good guys," with God on their side. Sound familiar?

Oh, so it is the world who is perpetrating these terrorist attacks? The world is not perpetrating such attacks. But the world's outrage against Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion of Iraq has not done much to squelch anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world, and has given many terrorists a feeling that, if most people on the planet oppose Bush's invasion, then they don't feel so bad fighting and killing "evil" Americans and those who support them.

There was anti-American hatred long before Bush was ever elected, and a lot more terrorist attacks. Of course anti-American hatred has been with us for a long time. But if Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies saw a decrease in terrorist acts following 9/11 and going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, then why did they push their luck and do such a stupid thing as to invade another Islamic country that had no clear ties with al-Qaeda, no clear evidence of WMDs, and one who's leader was actually despised by Osama bin Laden? One would have thought that Bush and company would have listened to those Middle East experts who said invading Iraq would just rekindle old hatreds and inflame thousands of Muslims to the point of being willing to blow up themselves and others, sacrificing their lives for what they believed was a greater good? It makes me think that Bush and company were oblivious to the consequences of their actions! Perhaps they were on some kind of new designer drug called "Oblivion."

The first 3 years of the Clinton Presidency saw 1192 terrorist attacks. The first 3 years of the Bush Presidencey saw 761 terrorist attacks. Still wanna blame Bush? Show me the time machine he used. Your comparison is meaningless. Terrorism under Bush Sr. and Clinton was fairly steady, from year to year. When 9/11 shocked the world, terrorism would have dropped somewhat regardless of what Bush did. Yes, going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan kept them on the run for a while. But when Bush foolishly shifted the focus toward Iraq, I'm sure many top members of al-Qaeda shook their heads in amazement and said: "Cool. Now that the heat is off and Bush is going after our hated Saddam, we can get back to planning more terrorist attacks around the world."

You blame Bush for EVERYTHING!! Bush is not to blame for everything. He is, however, to blame for many thousands of very serious things, namely the unnecessary deaths of U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi men, women and children!

If Bush had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be funding terrorism and butchering Iraqi's. Whatever funding Saddam gave to the families of dead suicide bombers, whatever atrocities he committed in the 1980s, whatever UN Resolutions he violated, or whatever he did that brutal dictators typically do, DID NOT warrant the massive invasion of Iraq and the slaughter of uncounted thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003! Iraq was NOT a threat! Bush never presented hard pre-war evidence of WMDs. Bush's own people never found any evidence of existing WMDs or recent WMD programs!! And as much as you and your right-wing fanatic friends want to believe, Iraq was NOT "central to the war on terrorism." In fact, our continued presence in Iraq is central to perpetuating anti-American hatred and, in turn, anti-American terrorism.

It shows that we are effective and the terrorists know it. Invading Iraq was effective? :doh:

When Bush invaded Iraq, this opened up new opportunities and justifications for terrorist recruitment. Bush's inept, unnecessary and immoral invasion played right into the hands of would-be and existing terrorists.

Tell me, if Bush's invasion of Iraq was such a wonderful thing, why is it that the ONLY people who still think so are a rapidly decreasing number of die-hard right-wingers, such as yourself? Most Americans think it was a mistake. Most Arabs think it was a mistake. Most Iraqis think it was a mistake. A vast majority of the population of the planet still thinks it was a mistake! So, if the numbers of people who think it was a mistake are rapidly increasing around the globe, why is it that you still think Bush's invasion was so great? Terrorism is dramatically up. U.S. troop deaths are increasing. Iraqi deaths are increasing. Iraq's alleged WMDs and meaningful ties to al-Qaeda were never found. Just why the hell do you still think Bush's invasion was so damn justified?

[BillyBob]

BillyBob, please. The terrorists were not on our sides, and we all know that. BUT the majority of the world was, and the terrorists knew that further attacks on America directly follow 9/11 would anger not just the US, but much of the world.


Terrorists don't give a flying crap what the 'rest of the world' thinks of them, they're terrorists for Godsakes!!!!! Do you think they cared what the 'rest of the world' thought when they flew planes into our buildings????

God you people are friggin' idiots! :dunce: :loser: :liberals: :skeptic:

[BillyBob]

Hey commies, I suppose you are gonna blame Bush for this one, too. :loser:



Blasts in Egypt Kill at Least 59 at Sinai Resort


By MONA EL-NAGGAR and GREG MYRE
Published: July 23, 2005

SHARM EL SHEIK, Egypt, Saturday, July 23 - At least 59 people were killed in a series of powerful explosions early Saturday in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheik, Egypt's interior minister said.


There was no immediate claim of responsibility, and it was not clear whether the bombs were in parked cars or detonated by suicide bombers.

About 116 people were wounded in the blasts, the interior minister, Habib El-Adly, said. The explosions were apparently caused by car bombs at hotels and a market that catered mostly to European and Arab tourists, The Associated Press reported, citing security officials. Fire and smoke rose in Sharm el Sheik and nearby Naama Bay, which also has a strip of beach hotels.

Mr. El-Adly said investigators had started to gather clues from one of the cars used in the bombings, and he added that those behind Saturday's attacks could have links to those who conducted attacks last October on resorts in the Sinai Peninsula. In those attacks, three nearly simultaneous explosions ripped apart hotels in Taba, on the border with Israel, and two other Sinai resorts, killing 34 people, many of them Israelis.

Saturday's bombings appeared to be the deadliest terror attack in Egypt since a 1997 assault in Luxor, on the Nile River, that killed 58 tourists.

The explosions rocked the resort area shortly after 1 a.m. Saturday and all took place within a few minutes of one another, witnesses said.

"I heard two blasts and got up and ran out of the hotel," Yasmine el-Bahey, an Egyptian spending the weekend at the Kahramana Hotel, said in a telephone interview. "Everybody was running outside. Glass was shattered and there was a big cloud of black. Everybody ran to the beach. Many of them were naked."

There was no immediate claim of responsibility, and it was not clear whether the bombs were in parked cars or detonated by suicide bombers.

"What happened early this morning is rejected by all people," Egypt's tourism minister, Ahmed el-Maghrabi, told Egyptian television. "These criminal gangs will not be able to prevent people from traveling and moving."

The most powerful bombs went off in a parking lot between the Ghazala and Mövenpick hotels in Sharm el Sheik's Naama Bay area.

The Ghazala Hotel was "completely burned down, destroyed," Amal Mustafa, an Egyptian visitor, told The Associated Press. Television footage showed parts of the building burned out.

Another large bomb exploded in a popular market area a few miles away, the A.P. reported. That blast killed 17 people, many of them believed to be Egyptians sitting at a coffee shop. In addition, a blast occurred at a busy taxi stand, Egyptian television reported.

Despite the late hour, the streets were still busy because many people stay indoors during the heat of the day and come out late at night.

The violence occurred as Egypt prepared to hold its first multicandidate presidential elections in September. President Hosni Mubarak, who has been in power for 24 years, has prided himself on maintaining stability and has portrayed the elections as a significant reform. However, protesters and other critics of Mr. Mubarak say that opposition candidates will have little chance.

Sharm el Sheik, at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula, is Egypt's leading resort and draws foreign tourists year-round from Europe and the Arab world. The area is particularly popular among scuba divers and snorkelers who are drawn to the clear water and abundant marine life. Sharm el Sheik is also used for international summit meetings: Mr. Mubarak was host to Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, there in February when the Israelis and Palestinians announced a truce.

But the Sinai Peninsula has also been a target for bombers. The bombings last October in Taba and two other places were aimed at resorts that are popular among Israelis, who accounted for many of the casualties. The Egyptian authorities linked that attack to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The trial of three men suspected of involvement in the attacks began this month.

In first reports on the bombing on Saturday, the casualties included people from Britain, Russia, the Netherlands, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the A.P. reported, citing a security official.

Egypt's economy depends heavily on tourism, and the industry had recovered after the series of terror attacks in the 1990's that drove away many Western visitors.

After the 1997 attack in Luxor, Mr. Mubarak's government launched a sweeping crackdown against Muslim radicals opposed to his rule. No major attacks were carried out in Egypt until the bombings last October.

[Frank Ernest]

Hey commies, I suppose you are gonna blame Bush for this one, too. :loser:



Blasts in Egypt Kill at Least 59 at Sinai Resort


By MONA EL-NAGGAR and GREG MYRE
Published: July 23, 2005

SHARM EL SHEIK, Egypt, Saturday, July 23 - At least 59 people were killed in a series of powerful explosions early Saturday in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheik, Egypt's interior minister said.

[snip]

Egypt's economy depends heavily on tourism, and the industry had recovered after the series of terror attacks in the 1990's that drove away many Western visitors.

After the 1997 attack in Luxor, Mr. Mubarak's government launched a sweeping crackdown against Muslim radicals opposed to his rule. No major attacks were carried out in Egypt until the bombings last October.

:think:

[BillyBob]

Yes Frank, Bush is responsible for the terrorism in the 1990's. Skeptic has promised to produce Bush's Time Machine for inspection.

[Skeptic]

Yes Frank, Bush is responsible for the terrorism in the 1990's. Skeptic has promised to produce Bush's Time Machine for inspection. You, apparently, failed to read my last post. So here it is again.

I see, so you are saying that after 9-11, the terrorists were on our side and decreased terrorism? You've got to be kidding me, there is no way you are serious. The horror of 9/11 sent shockwaves throughout the world. Most Islamic governments and their citizens were outraged that fellow Muslims could do such a thing. This atmosphere was not conducive to terrorist recruitment. Terrorist acts decreased.

Then, when Bush unnecessarily invaded Iraq, this galvanized many Muslims who would not have otherwise resorted to terrorism. Governments around the globe, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, condemned Bush's outrageous invasion. Muslims were emboldened by the anti-American sentiments in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. This dramatic increase in anti-Americanism resulted in a dramatic jump in recruitment of new terrorists and formation of new terrorist groups.

You talk about terrorists as if they were born that way. The reality is that many of today's terrorists were not terrorists after 9/11, but became terrorists after Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion of Iraq! People don't become terrorists because they simply like killing people. In their own misguided way, they see acts of terrorism as the only way they can influence an apparently hopeless situation. They know that the U.S. has the wealth, political influence and military might to do what it damn well pleases. So they they do what they can to disrupt this wealth and power. They also do what they do in order to instill fear in those who might otherwise be motivated to cooperate with the U.S. and their allies.

Which produced the second lowest yearly rate of terrorism in 15 years. In the months following Bush's unnecessary invasion, would-be terrorists were waiting for the dust to settle and were gearing up for their attacks. Then, we had Abu Gharib, no WMDs found in Iraq, and shoot-first-ask-questions-later tactics by the so-called U.S. and British "liberators." And, in 2004, would-be terrorists had had enough and did what they thought was right and necessary to effect change.

All many of them have left is their craving for vengeance. They view themselves as freedom fighters using age-old gorilla tactics and time-tested terrorist acts. They view themselves as the "good guys," with God on their side. Sound familiar?

Oh, so it is the world who is perpetrating these terrorist attacks? The world is not perpetrating such attacks. But the world's outrage against Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion of Iraq has not done much to squelch anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world, and has given many terrorists a feeling that, if most people on the planet oppose Bush's invasion, then they don't feel so bad fighting and killing "evil" Americans and those who support them.

There was anti-American hatred long before Bush was ever elected, and a lot more terrorist attacks. Of course anti-American hatred has been with us for a long time. But if Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies saw a decrease in terrorist acts following 9/11 and going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, then why did they push their luck and do such a stupid thing as to invade another Islamic country that had no clear ties with al-Qaeda, no clear evidence of WMDs, and one who's leader was actually despised by Osama bin Laden? One would have thought that Bush and company would have listened to those Middle East experts who said invading Iraq would just rekindle old hatreds and inflame thousands of Muslims to the point of being willing to blow up themselves and others, sacrificing their lives for what they believed was a greater good? It makes me think that Bush and company were oblivious to the consequences of their actions! Perhaps they were on some kind of new designer drug called "Oblivion."

The first 3 years of the Clinton Presidency saw 1192 terrorist attacks. The first 3 years of the Bush Presidencey saw 761 terrorist attacks. Still wanna blame Bush? Show me the time machine he used. Your comparison is meaningless. Terrorism under Bush Sr. and Clinton was fairly steady, from year to year. When 9/11 shocked the world, terrorism would have dropped somewhat regardless of what Bush did. Yes, going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan kept them on the run for a while. But when Bush foolishly shifted the focus toward Iraq, I'm sure many top members of al-Qaeda shook their heads in amazement and said: "Cool. Now that the heat is off and Bush is going after our hated Saddam, we can get back to planning more terrorist attacks around the world."

You blame Bush for EVERYTHING!! Bush is not to blame for everything. He is, however, to blame for many thousands of very serious things, namely the unnecessary deaths of U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi men, women and children!

If Bush had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be funding terrorism and butchering Iraqi's. Whatever funding Saddam gave to the families of dead suicide bombers, whatever atrocities he committed in the 1980s, whatever UN Resolutions he violated, or whatever he did that brutal dictators typically do, DID NOT warrant the massive invasion of Iraq and the slaughter of uncounted thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003! Iraq was NOT a threat! Bush never presented hard pre-war evidence of WMDs. Bush's own people never found any evidence of existing WMDs or recent WMD programs!! And as much as you and your right-wing fanatic friends want to believe, Iraq was NOT "central to the war on terrorism." In fact, our continued presence in Iraq is central to perpetuating anti-American hatred and, in turn, anti-American terrorism.

It shows that we are effective and the terrorists know it. Invading Iraq was effective? :doh:

When Bush invaded Iraq, this opened up new opportunities and justifications for terrorist recruitment. Bush's inept, unnecessary and immoral invasion played right into the hands of would-be and existing terrorists.

Tell me, if Bush's invasion of Iraq was such a wonderful thing, why is it that the ONLY people who still think so are a rapidly decreasing number of die-hard right-wingers, such as yourself? Most Americans think it was a mistake. Most Arabs think it was a mistake. Most Iraqis think it was a mistake. A vast majority of the population of the planet still thinks it was a mistake! So, if the numbers of people who think it was a mistake are rapidly increasing around the globe, why is it that you still think Bush's invasion was so great? Terrorism is dramatically up. U.S. troop deaths are increasing. Iraqi deaths are increasing. Iraq's alleged WMDs and meaningful ties to al-Qaeda were never found. Just why the hell do you still think Bush's invasion was so damn justified?

[fool]

If you're pissed about Iraq Just wait till we invade Iran.

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,774
Unnecessary U.S. Wounded In Action: 13,438
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 22,850 - could be far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - could be far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[Holly]

If you're pissed about Iraq Just wait till we invade Iran.
That may be sooner than some here think. Freedom, after all, is on the march.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/21/iran/index.html


Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, right, shakes hands with Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref on Tuesday in Tehran.

The Iraq war is over, and the winner is... Iran
Hamstrung by the Iraq debacle, all Bush can do is gnash his teeth as the hated mullahs in Iran cozy up to their co-religionists in Iraq.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Juan Cole



July 21, 2005 | Iraq's new government has been trumpeted by the Bush administration as a close friend and a model for democracy in the region. In contrast, Bush calls Iran part of an axis of evil and dismisses its elections and government as illegitimate. So the Bush administration cannot have been filled with joy when Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and eight high-powered cabinet ministers paid an extremely friendly visit to Tehran this week.

The two governments went into a tizzy of wheeling and dealing of a sort not seen since Texas oil millionaires found out about Saudi Arabia. Oil pipelines, port access, pilgrimage, trade, security, military assistance, were all on the table in Tehran. All the sorts of contracts and deals that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney had imagined for Halliburton, and that the Pentagon neoconservatives had hoped for Israel, were heading instead due east.


Jaafari's visit was a blow to the Bush administration's strategic vision, but a sweet triumph for political Shiism. In the dark days of 1982, Tehran was swarming with Iraqi Shiite expatriates who had been forced to flee Saddam Hussein's death decree against them. They had been forced abroad, to a country with which Iraq was then at war. Ayatollah Khomeini, the newly installed theocrat of Iran, pressured the expatriates to form an umbrella organization, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which he hoped would eventually take over Iraq. Among its members were Jaafari and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. On Jan. 30, 2005, Khomeini's dream finally came true, courtesy of the Bush administration, when the Supreme Council and the Dawa Party won the Iraqi elections.
......(to read the rest of the article, click the link above. If you aren't a Salon member, you can get a free one-day-pass by clicking to watch a brief commercial)

[Skeptic]

If you're pissed about Iraq Just wait till we invade Iran. Iran won't be NEARLY the pushover Iraq was! The U.S. bombed the hell out of Iraq for years before Bush unnecessarily invaded, unjustly killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process. Iran, on the other hand, has been watching and preparing since 1991. Iran has done their homework. They have seen what works against the U.S. and Britain, and what doesn't work. Iran would put up a far more effective fight, using the kind of gorilla and terrorist tactics that they have seen are effective against the Western infidels. If you think that an influx of foreign terrorists is a problem in Iraq, you ain't seen nothing yet! Iran would make Iraq look like, well .... a training camp! Iran would be the REAL battleground against Islamic terrorists elements. If the U.S. invaded Iran, massive numbers of Iranians, who have no terrorist inclinations now, would quickly become highly motivated suicide bombers. Invasions by foreign powers have a way of turning peace-loving citizens into terrorist jihadists!

Bush was a fool for invading Iraq. He would be an even greater fool for invading Iran!

[Skeptic]

If Bush invaded Iran, guess who would be flooding across the border into Iran to fight the invading U.S. infidels. Iraqis! :chuckle:

[fool]

Bush was a fool for invading Iraq. He would be an even greater fool for invading Iran!
let's hear it for the fools of the world!
:thumb:

[simply one]

Another tie between Iran and Iraq: the New Iraqi Constitution -

If adopted, the shift away from the more secular and egalitarian provisions of the interim constitution would be a major victory for Shiite clerics and religious politicians, who chafed at the Americans' insistence that Islam be designated in the interim constitution as just "a source" of legislation. Several writers of the new constitution say they intend, at the very least, to designate Islam as "a main source" of legislation.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/international/middleeast/20women.html)

Well, I guess the USA was successful! or not... Iraq is going from a coutnry of progressive equal rights to an Iran-esque theocratic democracy:

Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge. Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/international/middleeast/20women.html) (same)

So, even if America does invade Iran, we will have a new Iran... in Iraq!

[simply one]

let's hear it for the fools of the world!
:thumb:

I must say that I much prefer the TOL, Atheist, more-right-than-left fool, over the C student, most-powerful-president-in-the-world, clueless, right wing fool...

[aikido7]

Hey commies, I suppose you are gonna blame Bush for this one, too. :loser:


QUOTES FROM "Blasts in Egypt Kill at Least 59 at Sinai Resort"

...There was no immediate claim of responsibility....

The explosions were apparently caused by car bombs...

Saturday's bombings appeared to be the deadliest terror attack in Egypt....

The violence occurred as Egypt prepared to hold its first multicandidate presidential elections in September...

Sharm el Sheik is also used for international summit meetings: Mr. Mubarak was host to Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, there in February when the Israelis and Palestinians announced a truce....

The Egyptian authorities linked (a previous similar) attack to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

...After the 1997 attack in Luxor, Mr. Mubarak's government launched a sweeping crackdown against Muslim radicals opposed to his rule.

NO ONE'S TO BLAME, BILLYBOB--BUT EVERYONE'S ACCOUNTABLE.

[BillyBob]

Iraq is going from a coutnry of progressive equal rights.....


:darwinsm:

[fool]

I must say that I much prefer the TOL, Atheist, more-right-than-left fool, over the C student, most-powerful-president-in-the-world, clueless, right wing fool...
Thank you.

[BillyBob]

....no clear evidence of WMDs...

"If you don't think Iraq is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me" -John Kerry on the campaign trail

[Frank Ernest]

Yes Frank, Bush is responsible for the terrorism in the 1990's. Skeptic has promised to produce Bush's Time Machine for inspection.
Karl Rove sent me this picture which is classified Super Duper Really Secret Stuff.

[drbrumley]

"If you don't think Iraq is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me" -John Kerry on the campaign trail

And thankfully I didn't. And thankfully I didnt vote for Bush either.

[BillyBob]

Karl Rove sent me this picture which is classified Super Duper Really Secret Stuff.

Is that George Bush's time machine that he used to get terrorists to attack us in the 1990's?

[Skeptic]

"If you don't think Iraq is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me" -John Kerry on the campaign trail :yawn:
Kerry was hoodwinked, along with the rest of Congress and the American people, by Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies.

Kerry had no hard evidence of Iraqi WMD. Therefore, he was wrong to make such a statement. He said this only to score political points. If he had known that Bush was going to invade Iraq, without hard evidence of WMD, Kerry would not have made such an irresponsible statement.

Kerry did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. He only agreed to give the President the authority to use force if it became necessary. According to the evidence (or lack thereof) it never became necessary.

[simply one]

:darwinsm:

:doh:

Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/international/middleeast/20women.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1122177660-JEMcOHHtSt0gGp/7OubNVA)

The average woman's situation in Iraq has grown even more precarious since the war. Women made up 40 percent of the public-center work force but now almost none has jobs, and the Coalition Provisional Authority is not providing social welfare payments. The military and former government workers are being given monthly stipends, but women only receive a small percentage of that. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women are single mothers and widows, given three successive wars in 20 years and Saddam's frequent executions. Others are second or third wives of the same man who does not take financial care of them.

Moreover, Iraq's borders are now open to what she calls "Islamist political groups" like the Iran-backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Other fundamentalist clerics have also returned, like the young Shiite Moqtada Sadr, and they are agitating to get women under the veil. Source (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030813-052611-9458r)

As you can see, Freedom for the woman of Iraq is Marching on!!!

Woops! not really. The invasion is making the position of woman WORSE not better in Iraq. So the "spread of freedom and equal rights" reasoning for the war jsut defenestrated itself...

[Frank Ernest]

Is that George Bush's time machine that he used to get terrorists to attack us in the 1990's?
Yes, it is. He also used it to get the muslims to attack in 732 at Poitiers and 1590 at Lepanto. Dick Cheney hinted, in another Super Duper Secret Stuff document, that the Crusades might be involved also.

When you have a Time Machine, "when" doesn't really matter, does it?

[Frank Ernest]

NO ONE'S TO BLAME, BILLYBOB--BUT EVERYONE'S ACCOUNTABLE.
You'll have to explain to me how someone not responsible for a situation is accountable for it. (Ought to generate some really cool hearings on Capitol Hill.) :doh:

[BillyBob]

As you can see, Freedom for the woman of Iraq is Marching on!!!

Woops! not really. The invasion is making the position of woman WORSE not better in Iraq.


Yes, not being allowed to work is much better than being raped, tortured and murdered. :rolleyes:

By the way, I don't allow Mrs. BillyBob to work, either. :BillyBob:

[BillyBob]

:yawn:
Kerry was hoodwinked, along with the rest of Congress and the American people, by Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies.



Clinton said Saddam had WMD, also. Oh, that's right, Bush has that pesky little Time Machine.......

[simply one]

Yes, not being allowed to work is much better than being raped, tortured and murdered. :rolleyes:

By the way, I don't allow Mrs. BillyBob to work, either. :BillyBob:

:hammer:

Hmm... so, woman in Iraq are not being raped, tortured, and murdered these days, right???

Wrong:

Anecdotal evidence suggests women and girls are being abducted in broad daylight and raped in alarming numbers. Many are returned to their families where they face the prospect of "honor killing" if it is known they have been raped. Therefore, some victims refuse to report the crime or seek medical attention. In many cases, hospitals refuse treatment to rape victims, citing an overload of patients, according to the report. A medical confirmation of rape can only be made at the city's forensic institute -- at the morgue. Source (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030813-052611-9458r)

more (and by American soldiers too!):

Amnesty International said that women in Iraq are not in a better situation of what they were under the rule of Saddam Hussein, two years after the invasion of Iraq which was led by the USA.

A report by the organization under the title "Iraq: decades of sufferings" indicated that the campaign of repression under the rule of Saddam Hussein have been replaced by killing and sexual abuse crimes including those carried out at the hands of the American forces.

The organization which is concerned with human rights said that the absence of the law and increasing acts of killing, kidnapping and rape limited the freedom of women to move and their ability to go to work or to school.

The report explained that several women who were held by the American forces talked in interviews with the organization about being exposed to beating, threats of rape, humiliating treatment and long times of isolated imprisonment. Source (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050222/2005022209.html)

Still think that Iraqi woman have been given a new birth of "Freedom"? That they no longer have to be afraid of rape and death?:think: :doh:

[simply one]

Clinton said Saddam had WMD, also. Oh, that's right, Bush has that pesky little Time Machine.......

Becase Saddam DID have WMD in the 90s... BUT, by the time of the US invasion, and the preceding UN weapons inspections, there was no evidence of WMD. But Bush said that Iraq had WMD at the time of invasion in 2003, which is an outrigth falsehood.

[aikido7]

Becase Saddam DID have WMD in the 90s... BUT, by the time of the US invasion, and the preceding UN weapons inspections, there was no evidence of WMD. But Bush said that Iraq had WMD at the time of invasion in 2003, which is an outrigth falsehood.People were so whipped up into a fear alert and so preoccupied with trashing the weapons inspectors (attack and blame the messenger) that much of this truth could not get through unless you were willing to take the time to dig for it.

[BillyBob]

Becase Saddam DID have WMD in the 90s... BUT, by the time of the US invasion, and the preceding UN weapons inspections, there was no evidence of WMD. But Bush said that Iraq had WMD at the time of invasion in 2003, which is an outrigth falsehood.


I see, so Saddam had WMD in 1998 but they miraculously vanished by 2003?

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

:hammer:

Hmm... so, woman in Iraq are not being raped, tortured, and murdered these days, right???


Not by Saddam's regime they aren't, thanks to George Bush!!! :sam:




Still think that Iraqi woman have been given a new birth of "Freedom"? That they no longer have to be afraid of rape and death?:think: :doh:

Good Lord, you quote Amnesty International [commie central] and expect me to take you seriously??

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Clinton said Saddam had WMD, also. Yes, Clinton did say he believed Iraq had WMD. But there's a reason Clinton did not launch a massive invasion of Iraq. The reason is that Clinton did not think Saddam posed such a great and urgent threat that it warranted an invasion, which he and everyone knew would have resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

In October 1998, Saddam Hussein said he would no longer cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, who by then had been in Iraq for 7 1/2 years, destroying all WMDs they could find. Six weeks later, Clinton launched limited strikes against certain suspected weapons facilities, to motivate Saddam to start cooperating again.

Clinton said that the job of the UN inspectors was "to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability." So, Clinton said that he was concerned that Iraq did not attempt to rebuild a capacity that they once had. Sure, he suspected that Saddam might have retained some unaccounted-for WMDs, which is why he wanted those inspectors on the ground and Saddam's cooperation.

Everyone had questions about possible WMDs in Iraq. But one does rationally or ethically not start a war by launching a massive pre-emptive invasion against another country because one has questions or suspicions that they might posses WMDs!

Saddam was cooperating with weapons inspectors, in the months leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion. No WMDs had been found. No WMD programs had been found. And during the time the inspectors were not finding any WMDs or programs, the U.S. was steadily bombing Iraq, right up to before Bush's unnecessary invasion.

No, a President does not justifiably start all-out wars and invade countries merely because he believes they pose a WMD threat. If there is no clear hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children in an unprovoked invasion is NEVER warranted!!

[BillyBob]

Saddam had over a dozen UN Resolutions against him which he ignored and before Bush invaded Iraq, he gave Saddam a chance to prove he got rid of his WMD. Saddam declined and continued playing his fateful games.

Bush did the right thing, even though Clinton refused to.

[Skeptic]

Saddam had over a dozen UN Resolutions against him which he ignored and before Bush invaded Iraq, he gave Saddam a chance to prove he got rid of his WMD. Saddam declined and continued playing his fateful games. It doesn't matter if Saddam had ignored over a thousand UN Resolutions against him!

:sozo: No clear hard evidence of a real significant and imminent WMD threat, no justification for starting a war and killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children!!!

If the UN was so upset about Saddam's violations of UN Resolutions, why did the UN itself not think Bush's invasion of Iraq was warranted? Because they KNEW Bush had no hard evidence of WMDs! They KNEW Bush was basing his invasion on mere hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations!

Bush did the right thing, even though Clinton refused to. Bush did the WRONG thing!!! Do you want me to repeat why?

[BillyBob]

Bush did the right thing! :banana:

[Skeptic]

Bush did the WRONG thing!!! :mad:

Thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as over 1700 brave U.S. troops unnecessarily DEAD!!! :madmad:

[Skeptic]

-- DAILY IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Unnecessary U.S. Troop Deaths: 1,776
Unnecessary U.S. Wounded In Action: 13,438
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 22,880 - could be far greater!
At least 42,500 reported wounded - could be far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[BillyBob]

Bush did the WRONG thing!!!

BUSH DID THE RIGHT THING!!!!!

[Skeptic]

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. I've given you plenty of reasons why Bush's invasion was unnecessary and immoral.

Most Americans and the world disagree with you.

[aikido7]

Bush did the right thing! :banana:Stole an election. Lied to America. Put this nation into harm's way. And said the f-word many times.

The guy's a Soprano, not a president.

[simply one]

BUSH DID THE RIGHT THING!!!!!

Have we not gone over this enough on this thread so far, contrary to what the Bush Administration did in the lead up to Iraq, and continues to try to do, saying things OVER AND OVER, LOUDLY, AND IN BIG FONTS DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY LESS WRONG!

[aikido7]

Have we not gone over this enough on this thread so far, contrary to what the Bush Administration did in the lead up to Iraq, and continues to try to do, saying things OVER AND OVER, LOUDLY, AND IN BIG FONTS DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY LESS WRONG!You can fool some of the people some of the time. And it can actually work for the unintellligent, uncritical and naive mind. Even Fox News knows that.

[simply one]

Not by Saddam's regime they aren't, thanks to George Bush!!! :sam:


Excellent! Instead of being raped, tortured, and killed by a tyrannical regime, woman in Iraq are being raped, tortured, and killed by US Soldiers and their fellow Iraqis!

Sounds like a good point! But it smells like :cow:!

By the way, I don't allow Mrs. BillyBob to work, either.

Congrats. It looks like you have more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than you thought!

[aikido7]

...It looks like you have more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than you thought!Our fundamental enemy is a medievalist theological fascism, buried in the recesses of a legitimate religious faith. And that's just the Islamic kind...

[Holly]

You can fool some of the people some of the time. And it can actually work for the unintellligent, uncritical and naive mind. Even Fox News knows that.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
George W. Bush, Gridiron Club dinner, Washington, DC, March 2001.

[Frank Ernest]

Yes, Clinton did say he believed Iraq had WMD. But there's a reason Clinton did not launch a massive invasion of Iraq. The reason is that Clinton did not think Saddam posed such a great and urgent threat that it warranted an invasion, which he and everyone knew would have resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

Kosovo ring a bell?

[BillyBob]

Stole an election.


:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

Excellent! Instead of being raped, tortured, and killed by a tyrannical regime, woman in Iraq are being raped, tortured, and killed by US Soldiers and their fellow Iraqis!


Oh, now US soldiers are rapists? You anti-American slime. If you were standing in front of me right now, I'd flog you. :box:

[BillyBob]

Congrats. It looks like you have more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than you thought!

Not allowing my wife to work so she can stay home and raise her children is an Islamic virtue?

You're an idiot. :dunce:

[BillyBob]

Simply saying it doesn't make it so.

Likewise.

I've given you plenty of reasons why Bush's invasion was unnecessary and immoral.

I have given you plenty of reasons why our invasion of Iraq was justified and the correct thing to do.



Most Americans and the world disagree with you.


I highly doubt it, but it's no wonder that some of them agree with the leftist/commie/american hating/democrat view, you spew your lies and hatred for America endlessly.

[Frank Ernest]

You can fool some of the people some of the time. And it can actually work for the unintellligent, uncritical and naive mind. Even Fox News knows that.
:darwinsm: I assume you are referring to the very same people who voted for Clinton twice.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Stole an election.
Apparently not. Gore tried that and didn't make it.

Lied to America.
Nope. Sure didn't.

Put this nation into harm's way.
No terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001. Looks like he is keeping the nation out of harm's way.

And said the f-word many times.
I doubt that. He is not a Dummo:Commie:.

The guy's a Soprano, not a president.
Actually he is a baritone.

[On Fire]

Daily Impeachment Check: Sorry, commies, NOT TODAY

[aikido7]

:darwinism:Wake up, little Susie. If we know nothing else about the government now we certainly know that it doesn't hesitate to cheat and steal and lie. Its family values are those of the Mafia. History lesson, sir: These are merely the heartland values of the American frontierof the 1800s but also with the predatory practices our twenty-first-century business corporations

Bush was certainly not above perpetuating the lie of the war in Iraq. Apparently it would not suffer much loss of face to ask for God's help to fix and election. It's been done before, oh naiive one.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200411/POL20041111b.html
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.art-science.com/Bush/b10.html

Oh, now US soldiers are rapists? You anti-American slime. If you were standing in front of me right now, I'd flog you.Attack the messenger, BillyBob. Karl Rove will not be forgotten.

Not only do you do a typical ignorant knee-jerk denial to any factual occurrence, you denigrate and threaten an Abu Ghraib-style stunt as your threat. Why not just blow the cover on another CIA agent?

[BillyBob]

Attack the messenger, BillyBob.

No, I was attacking the American hating idiot.

Karl Rove will not be forgotten.

Sure he will.


Not only do you do a typical ignorant knee-jerk denial to any factual occurrence,

Factual occurance??? You guys are getting your talking points from the likes of that slimeball Dick Dubin, for godsakes! Are you actually prepared to support the accusation that the Rape Rooms of Saddam have been replaced with Rape Rooms of American soldiers???????


you denigrate and threaten an Abu Ghraib-style stunt as your threat.

No, I don't want to do any gay stuff to simpleton, I just want to kick his asss.

Why not just blow the cover on another CIA agent?

We all know what you'd like to blow.....:shut:

[Jukia]

The guy's a Soprano, not a president.


Sounds like a slap at Italians, that is unfair. He is not a Soprano, he is a moron.

[Skeptic]

Kosovo ring a bell? Apples and oranges.

[Skeptic]

Not allowing my wife to work so she can stay home and raise her children is an Islamic virtue? It's the "not allowing" part that is of concern. If your wife stays at home to raise her children, it should be her choice.

[On Fire]

Mid-day Impeachment Check: Nope, not today.

[Skeptic]

I have given you plenty of reasons why our invasion of Iraq was justified and the correct thing to do. No you have not. And those that you have given are not very good.

I highly doubt it, but it's no wonder that some of them agree with the leftist/commie/american hating/democrat view, you spew your lies and hatred for America endlessly. I have no reason to take credit for the beliefs of others.

I have not lied, and have no hatred for America. If I did not love America, I would not be so concerned about the misguided and dangerous direction Bush and his neocon buddies are trying to take this great nation!

Talk about lying, calling democrats things like "America-hating commies" is clearly false, and you know it.

[Skeptic]

Terrorist attacks were highest under Ronald Reagan's watch!!
What's up with THAT?

The year following Bush Jr.'s unnecessary invasion of Iraq, we had the second highest number of global terrorist attacks in 23 years!! So much for the so-called "War on Terrorism."

It's reasonable to assume that Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq had something to do with the dramatic increase in terrorist attacks in 2004.

International Terrorist Attacks:

xxxx =========|=========|=========|=========|=========| =========|=========|
2005 = ?
2004 ================================================== ==========651
2003 ===================208 (March - Bush's invasion of Iraq)
2002 ===================205
2001 ===============================355 (October- Invasion of Afghanistan)
----GEORGE BUSH JR.
2000 ======================================426
1999 ===================================395
1998 ========================274
1997 ============================304
1996 =========================296
1995 =======================================440
1994 =============================322
1993 =======================================431
----BILL CLINTON
1992 =================================363
1991 ================================================== 565
1990 =======================================437
1989 =================================375
----GEORGE BUSH SR.
1988 ================================================== ======605
1987 ================================================== ==========665
1986 ================================================== ======612
1985 ================================================== =======635
1984 ================================================== 565
1983 ============================================497
1982 ===========================================487
1981 ===========================================489
----RONALD REAGAN
xxxx =========|=========|=========|=========|=========| =========|=========|

The above figures are off by a few, compared to those used in my earlier post. Those figures listed here, between 1981 and 2001, are older figures.

Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10235.htm
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1999/review.html
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1998/review.html
http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm

[Holly]

I have given you plenty of reasons why our invasion of Iraq was justified and the correct thing to do.

Then please remind us again why you aren't over there doing your part?

The Color Suits Him (http://webpages.charter.net/micah/oyeadsm.gif)
:rotfl:

[BillyBob]

I'm not a member of the military. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam was a terrorist and needed to be removed from power.

[BillyBob]

Terrorist attacks were highest under Ronald Reagan's watch!!
What's up with THAT?
]

George Bush has a time Machine, did you already forget that?

[BillyBob]

It's the "not allowing" part that is of concern. If your wife stays at home to raise her children, it should be her choice.

It happens that Mrs. BillyBob understands her role as Mother and Teacher of her children as well as housewife.

I can support our family quite comfortably, so there is no reason for things to be otherwise.

[Skeptic]

It happens that Mrs. BillyBob understands her role as Mother and Teacher of her children as well as housewife.

I can support our family quite comfortably, so there is no reason for things to be otherwise. But you would not allow her, even if she chose to be a working mom and have a fulfilling career of her own, right?

[BillyBob]

But you would not allow her, even if she chose to be a working mom and have a fulfilling career of her own, right?

She had a career before she became a Mother, now she homeschools her children and takes care of the household.

It is as it should be.

[Skeptic]

She had a career before she became a Mother, now she homeschools her children and takes care of the household.

It is as it should be. Did she choose this arrangement, or is it that you did not allow her any other?

[simply one]

She had a career before she became a Mother, now she homeschools her children and takes care of the household.

It is as it should be.

Can I hear a HUZZAH for Medieval Christian Societal Norms?

[simply one]

IRAQ WAR TV DRAMA (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/arts/television/25boch.html?)

What is our society coming to? Tens of thousands or Iraqis and almost 1800 US soldiers have died, and this show is going to try to turn their deaths into MONEY??? Where does the media get off these days? Freedom of speech is one thing, dishonoring the dead is something completely different.

[Gerald]

She had a career before she became a Mother...And what if she had been infertile?

[Holly]

IRAQ WAR TV DRAMA (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/arts/television/25boch.html?)

What is our society coming to? Tens of thousands or Iraqis and almost 1800 US soldiers have died, and this show is going to try to turn their deaths into MONEY???
Halliburton (Dick Cheney's old company) has been doing that since day one of the war.

[simply one]

Finally, more and more Americans are smelling this Administrations load of :cow::

Do you believe the nation is safer from a terrorist attack today because of our military action in Iraq?
Safer
36%

Less safe
49%

Other
6%

Undecided
9%

Source: Scripps Howard News Service / Ohio University Source (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/8219)

Should be interesting to see if the Administration even responds to this, or if it will just react with some kind of coverup announcement... or maybe they will ignore it and hope that the war just goes away......

"Judgement Day" November 2006 cannot come soon enough...

[aikido7]

I'm not a member of the military. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam was a terrorist and needed to be removed from power.You can still give the president your ultimate support by shutting up and signing up....

HEY--by the way, didn't Ol' Smirk and Swagger and his gang keep telling us that "Saddam was a terrorist and needed to be removed from power?"

Do you like repeating what Ol' Smirk and Swagger said about removing Saddam from power--even though the tragic consequences still continue to play out?

How do you react to authority? If Bush told you to get bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq, would you go do it?

I think Bush DID say Saddam was a terrorist and had to be removed from power--shortly after Osama bin Laden attacked us within the United States. And he kept telling us that, even though there was no connection between Osama and Saddam. And that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction." And he also further used the "fear factor" that Saddam had nuclear weapons and was going to use them soon! And this was in the State of the Union address--even though he had been warned and knew full well that intelligence sources knew otherwise.

Then he got the message from Joseph Wilson, and promtly blamed the messenger.

What about you, BillyBob? And since Saddam's statue has been torn down, what are your plans now?

[BillyBob]

Did she choose this arrangement, or is it that you did not allow her any other?


She choose it before I met her. I simply reinforced it and now demand it.

[BillyBob]

You can still give the president your ultimate support by shutting up and signing up....


I give him support by fighting you commies every day right here at home.

[Gerald]

I give him support by fighting you commies every day right here at home.But they're all still alive, BB. Obviously you're doing something wrong...

[BillyBob]

I'm workin' on it.....

[Frank Ernest]

Apples and oranges.
:darwinsm:

[simply one]

:darwinsm:


Sorry Frank, we forgot, the conflicts do have SOME similarities (enough for your simple mind to draw connections):

-both involved guns
-both involved the USA
-neither included any fighting on actual US soil

and thats about it.

[Skeptic]

She choose it before I met her. I simply reinforced it and now demand it. Sounds like you like playing the role of the "boss."

My wife and I have an egalitarian relationship in all areas.

[aikido7]

Sounds like you like playing the role of the "boss."

My wife and I have an egalitarian relationship in all areas.Condi requires a boss, too.

[aikido7]

...from the net...

CHECK OUT THIS RESUME:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With my father's help and name, I was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments as Governor:
I changed pollution laws in favor of the power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.
I became U.S. President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as President:
I attacked and overtook two countries.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
My record for environmental issues is the least of my concerns.
I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with criminal record.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.
After taking-off the entire month of August, I then presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD.
I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of Saddam's procurement of Yellow Cake Nuke WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. president.
In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.
I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history (e.g. The Patriot Act).
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I've dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.
I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history. I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.
My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I am the first president in U.S. history to have almost all 50 states of the Union simultaneously suffer massive financial crisis.
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in history.
I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.
I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board.
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. S. history.
I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation) presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history.
My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most resented country in the world, possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in World history.
I am actively working on a policy of "disengagement" creating the most hostile of Israel-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
I am first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am the first U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I set an all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling their huge personal investments in corporations bidding for U.S. contracts.
I failed to fulfill my pledge to capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.
I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the U.S. Capitol Building. Even after 18 months I have no leads and no credible suspects.
In the past 18 months following the World Trade Center attack I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any president in U.S. history.
In a little over two years, I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided since the Civil War.
I entered my office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and have turned every single economic category downward -- all in less than two years.
Records and References:
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine.
My Texas driving record has been erased and is not available.
I was AWOL from the National Guard. I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
I rely on Karl Rove to help me rely on him for all political policy decisions...

Please consider my experience when the impeachment vote comes up.

[Frank Ernest]

Sorry Frank, we forgot, the conflicts do have SOME similarities (enough for your simple mind to draw connections):

-both involved guns
-both involved the USA
-neither included any fighting on actual US soil

and thats about it.
Thanks for the in-depth analysis, simpleton. :darwinsm:

[Delmar]

...from the net...

CHECK OUT THIS RESUME:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With my father's help and name, I was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments as Governor:
I changed pollution laws in favor of the power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.
I became U.S. President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as President:
I attacked and overtook two countries.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
My record for environmental issues is the least of my concerns.
I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with criminal record.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.
After taking-off the entire month of August, I then presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD.
I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of Saddam's procurement of Yellow Cake Nuke WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. president.
In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.
I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history (e.g. The Patriot Act).
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I've dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.
I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history. I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.
My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I am the first president in U.S. history to have almost all 50 states of the Union simultaneously suffer massive financial crisis.
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in history.
I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.
I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board.
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. S. history.
I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation) presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history.
My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most resented country in the world, possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in World history.
I am actively working on a policy of "disengagement" creating the most hostile of Israel-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
I am first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am the first U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I set an all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling their huge personal investments in corporations bidding for U.S. contracts.
I failed to fulfill my pledge to capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.
I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the U.S. Capitol Building. Even after 18 months I have no leads and no credible suspects.
In the past 18 months following the World Trade Center attack I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
I removed more freed