Wacks the political Bee's Nest

Priceless
http://prycless.orsm.net/prycless35/images/prycless690.jpg

Just trying to keep this all in good fun.
http://www.hotboat.com/image_center/data/500/1703State_of_the_Union.jpg

Have a great day REDSKINS bros.
peace
mike

those ar old links, the russian intelligence was later proven wrong. as was our own. Bush wont even take accountability for our shoddy intelligence nor acting based on it.

korea is a real threat, waving missiles in our faces and our enemies. if Bush is so 'tough' and 'decisive' why isn't this a bigger issue? probably because not all conflicts are solved by invading. and iraq wasn't even a conflict.

Why should he? He was in office for 8 month's, It was Clinton who all by himself refused as well as cut funding for foreign counter intelligence, you know the kind of thing's like paying off these under world low lives for criticle info., info that could have helped prevent 9/11, that's right he cut it after countless attack's by Al Quida against American embassies, war ship's, and attacked us here on our own soil, with all these thing's happening, the great stain maker decieded to cut spending in these area's, but let's blame Bush, after 8 month's he should have just fixed every last problem he inheirited from BIlly Boy, let's not allow party lines to cloud our vision about the fact's

http://www.johnniebyrd.com/iss-nationalsecurity.asp (http://)

saddam neither had the means (WMD) the history (prior attacks) nor the intent (plans) to attack the US except he had the means and the history, he used chemical warfare on iran as well as his own people, he tried to get bush sr killed, and he gave terrorists a place to stay and train...

at the time no one knew the intel was bad, not him, and certainly not you. hindsight really is a great thing ;)

Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists yet we don't touch them. How about an invasion there. Oh, wait. Cheap oil, they own 7% of our country, and the fact that we have way too many contacts there keep us out.

USA should be invaded because Bush killed hundreds of innocent civilians? One way or the other Guy. Can't have both.

umm, wtf daseal? i was just stating that saddam had the means, the history and the intent, because it was stated that he didnt. I never said anything about the morality of the situation, sorry you misunderstood.

saudi arabia is also not openly hostile, has not tried to assassinate a US president, or used chemical weapons on a foreign nation or its own people. And if you listen to al jezerra (sp?) i'm sure many people there would agree with you on invading the US :P

The oil arguement seems to be used as a crutch when no valid point can be found. Apparently you think we invaded Iraq because of oil, but we refuse to invade Saudi Arabia because of oil??? asymetric arguements don't make a lot of sense in this case...

The oil arguement seems to be used as a crutch when no valid point can be found. Apparently you think we invaded Iraq because of oil, but we refuse to invade Saudi Arabia because of oil??? asymetric arguements don't make a lot of sense in this case...

Exactly, we get a good chunk of our oil from Canada and Venezuela. In fact in 2003, we got most of our oil from Canada. So why not go invade those countries?

except he had the means and the history, he used chemical warfare on iran as well as his own people, he tried to get bush sr killed, and he gave terrorists a place to stay and train...

at the time no one knew the intel was bad, not him, and certainly not you. hindsight really is a great thing ;)

using chemical weapons on a hostile neighbor or your own people is a COMPLETELY other ballgame from threatening the US. plus, the UN made him destroy those weapons, and looks like he did. back then the UN wasnt irrelevant.

what terrorists did he keep and train? dont say al-aqaeda, because thats not true. was he despicable? absolutely. was he a threat to the US?

N O

intelligence services knew the quality (lack of) of what they had. come on. they had hunches ("group think") and made bad judgement calls with a trigger happy president with an agenda encouraging them to think that way. too bad the congressional report on the administration's role in exaggerating evidence comes AFTER the election...

talk about hindsight.

saddam had at least one junked body of a 747 that was used to train on (hijacking) in the country. he knew about it, but chose not to stop it... that doesn't mean he knew and talked to all involved, but it was going on and saddam let it continue. Again, there is evidence that chemicals were being moved in water trucks not long before the invasion occurred. I would consider chemical weapons and such training as threats... whether they were big enough to merit an invasion is a different subject. But i would say planning assassination attempts on foreign leaders and having the money to back them would make them at least a minor threat ;)

as far as the report coming out after the election... it'd be stupid of him to let it out before if its going to cite him as responsible. That may suck, but unfortunately he isn't the first or last to do something of that sort (N korea is waiting till after our elections to hold talks so that they can try to get a softer president to deal with)...

saddam had at least one junked body of a 747 that was used to train on (hijacking) in the country. he knew about it, but chose not to stop it... that doesn't mean he knew and talked to all involved, but it was going on and saddam let it continue. Again, there is evidence that chemicals were being moved in water trucks not long before the invasion occurred. I would consider chemical weapons and such training as threats... whether they were big enough to merit an invasion is a different subject. But i would say planning assassination attempts on foreign leaders and having the money to back them would make them at least a minor threat ;)


what was the terrorist organization and had they attacked the US before? if not they could be more akin to the private militias we have training in our own country.


this chemical evidence you speak of wasn't anywhere near conclusive. Bush wouldnt let us stop hearing about it if it were. one thing that was conclusive was that even if he did have more than university sarin gas, he had no means to deliver them in any meaningful quantity across the world to threaten us. really this is grasping at straws and not even a 1/1000th of what Bush and admin. swore existed to us and congress.



as far as the report coming out after the election... it'd be stupid of him to let it out before if its going to cite him as responsible. That may suck, but unfortunately he isn't the first or last to do something of that sort (N korea is waiting till after our elections to hold talks so that they can try to get a softer president to deal with)...

this alone should worry you to no end and explicity make you vote against him. to delay a bi-partisan report that proves his administration's manipulations of intelligence for their own agenda till after his election? that's ok because other people like the N.KOREAN DICTATOR do the same kind of thing???


:doh: