Iraq

[Imawhosure]

Methos,

 

As always I also respect your opinion.........and rightfully so. You might believe I am in favor of this war as it is fought, and you would be wrong. In this instance, you might call me a radical, but I insist that I do not care who dies.........as long as that person has no ties to me, you, or anyone else in this country, Canada, Australia, England, or anyone of our allies.

 

 

As always, wars are fought for either religious reasons, or economics.

 

Personally, I do NOT think any war should be fought for any reasons.............but economics, well that is a different story.

 

I will not personally attack you perse, but if we can't mine our coal and convert it due to enviro reasons, then oil is the only game in town.

 

 

A large percentage of the people would like to have it both ways----------->for whatever reason they contrive, we can't drill our own oil, nor can we mine our own coal......making the Middle East a non factor. Like it or not, America is built on its econmy.......along with our standard of living.

 

YOU insist that GW is a fool!!!!! Maybe he is, and I am not happy with his decisions either; and yet I contend that your lobby puts us in almost an untenable position. China is already doing what I suggest we do, and if this is really a PLANET that we must all take care of, then they are doing what you suggest that The United States of America should not........protect its own interests.

 

My assertion that Japan and Germany is just another way to look at things is accurate!!!!! You see, it is all about the money, and if they become the worlds banker, their power grows exponentially. We currently have that position, not to mention we are the worlds police force.

 

Do I like it???????? Hell no I don't!

 

But with being the worlds banker, police force, and leading society, you have to make a stand.

 

Balancing what we do is precarious. Sometimes we do have to talk, sometimes attack, sometimes sacrifice. (and we do that more than Rome ever did)

 

We are not on different pages and some would suggest, rather we are in dispute over the percentages of what we would put towards each endeavor.

 

As far as winning this war, it is what you define as winning!!!!! My winning is having Iraq come to our sphere, as opposed to going to Irans sphere of influence.

 

Total victory is cutting the Middle East loose, because your lobby finally allows us to mine our resources; meaning we no longer need the Middle East. In all reality, you fuel our disdain!!!!!! Just tell them to go ahead and get it, and our troops will be home before X-Mas!!!!!!

 

Forget blaming Bush, oil companys, the Secret Service, the CIA, or anyone else. We do NOT NEED the Middle East...........if only you and Mike Moore will let loose of your stupidity.

 

Want them home? Me too!!!!!!!! So since it is your lobby, get of your booty and do something about it..............not to mention it will make Fords life much easier..........so explain to these members what is not to like by doing it, lololol.

 

 

COUGH, COUGH, I will help you with a little pollution to start your dizzy rebuttall, lololololoooollolllllllllllllll!!!!!!

 

P.S. SAVE THE PLANET, SAVE THE TREES, and all of the rich assholes in hollywood smile as you buy their ridiculous arguements America, hehehhehehehehehehehehehehehehehhe!! To bad for them, FINALLY the tide turns.

[howie]

OK Howie...like you would kick any one of them out of bed in Batavialand. Don't flatter yourself ya geezer. Your girl Ann dated uber-liberal Bill Maher at one time. Not that I commend her for it 'cause he's an ugly bastard, but you wonder what she saw in him? 'Nuff said on that subject.

 

Pete, actually I would, after I had my turn with them. I believe most men would enjoy a night with the trash you presented as your cream of the crop. But would they really want a relationship? Some may but I have my standards. Perhaps the Coulter-Maher fling was just that? A sidetrack from the usual and predictable? Sometimes opposite poles attract?

 

Actually the google results were quite simple, howie. Let me assist you - type - "Ann Coulter hermaphrodite" and you will happen upon this stunning photo of your conservative goddess:

 

If you slowed down and read, I asked where you got your 'Lib Hotties.' As usual, your link to Ann Coulter is nothing more than another classless web-blog attempting to smear what they fear. One thing I've noticed about Dems/Libs is how they are very ignorant or they outright lie to justify their stupidity. This charade of Ann Coulter's adam's apple is a classic example. Many people know that ALLpeople have a potential adam's apple. It is developed as testosterone levels (which both sexes have) increase. These levels determine the deepness of voice and bulge of the larynx. Many women have an apparent adam's apple. It certainly is not an indication of their sexuality, just their hormone levels. So Pete, now that truth be known, you can admit your ignorance or you may continue to justify your stupidity. Of course, you could avoid either by posting a link to some _real_ proof that Ann is a hermo. The old tired websites that insist on wallowing in their moronic IQ will not suffice. Linking to them will simply downgrade my opinion of you from your being a twit to your being an idiot. As stated, many women have a pronounced larynx. Recognize any of these?

 

 

Edited July 29, 2007 by howie

[howie]

Why don't you explain to us what's wrong with liberalism, this should be fun...

 

Be glad to but the list would be as a never-ending story. For brevity's sake, I'll submit:

 

Dems/Libs are nose-pickers

Reps are nose-blowers

Independents just sneeze a whole helluva lot.

 

This is what I've noticed over the years, nothing more than my personal observations. No links to such opinions will be presented. I don't have time to do your googlin' for you.

[methos]

I will not personally attack you perse, but if we can't mine our coal and convert it due to enviro reasons, then oil is the only game in town.

A large percentage of the people would like to have it both ways----------->for whatever reason they contrive, we can't drill our own oil, nor can we mine our own coal......making the Middle East a non factor. Like it or not, America is built on its econmy.......along with our standard of living.

 

So, you're saying that we, or better yet, folks like myself can't espouse energy independence while voicing concerns for global climate change, is that correct? If so, I disagree.

 

Here's why, we just have to get past our arrogance and start facing facts. We import the vast majority of our oil, and since most of that oil is based in countries that are growing more hostile to us, it would seem prudent to change our habits. Europe has a fleet average in the mid thirties, and Japan around 40 mpg. Both have more in the way of mass transportation, and both are working much harder to alleviate their dependence.

 

Show me the link(s) I would be glad to look at it - coal conversion that is. One of the concerns, for coal conversion, at least from what little I know is that while most profess the abundance of our coal, they tend to leave out that much of it isn't economically viable to mine. After all, it does make sense that they are going after the easiest, or the most accessible coal first, right?

 

China is already doing what I suggest we do, and if this is really a PLANET that we must all take care of, then they are doing what you suggest that The United States of America should not........protect its own interests.

 

As I have said before, while we are in Iraq bogged down, China is circling the globe signing new energy contracts ensuring it's supply. In other words, while we're distracted, China, India, and other Asian companies are fighting another war, an economic one, and I am sad to say we are not even in that fight.

 

My assertion that Japan and Germany is just another way to look at things is accurate!!!!! You see, it is all about the money, and if they become the worlds banker, their power grows exponentially. We currently have that position, not to mention we are the worlds police force... But with being the worlds banker, police force, and leading society, you have to make a stand.

 

China is the chief buyer of our T-Bills. The U.S. is a great place to invest, thankfully. China's GDP has seen double digit growth for years, it is only a matter of time. Expending this countries energy and wealth in Iraq only hastens our demise.

 

As far as winning this war, it is what you define as winning!!!!! My winning is having Iraq come to our sphere, as opposed to going to Irans sphere of influence.

 

I don't think winning is in the realm of possibility, at least not a likely one. It is no longer about winning, but just different degrees of losing and leaving with at least some possibility that the Iraqi government might survive without total chaos or worse some broadening regional conflict. I don't disagree that there is a lot at stake. I only disagree with the premise that we can effectively alter the outcome, at least towards the good. I don't have a crystal ball, I can't tell the future, but as a history buff, I have learned that I don't have to try to guess what might happen, I only have to look back. In that past is nothing but pain, and in our short experience, we have only made things worse.

 

You seem to suggest as if it is the environmental lobby has held us back. There is some truth in that, but not much. We only have less than five percent of the worlds reserves, right? We just don't have the resources, and we can't drill our way out of it. Could some of our future needs be met by coal, it could, but if it was feasible, wouldn't the coal companies be doing it now?

[dark270]

yet another lie, most of the U.S gets oil form canada, ven. and russia

 

http://login.yahoo.com/?.pd=c%3d1MKJL2Wp2e...30131905AA1bEIP

 

U.S. gets most of its oil from Venezuela & Canada, refuting the assertion that U.S. is in Iraq just for oil?

 

The U.S. gets most of its oil from Venezuela, Canada, and now, Russia, doesn't this contradict the assertion that the U.S. is in Iraq just for oil? Does Iraq really have that much oil? If it was all about oil, why didn't we find a reason to go to war with Russia instead? They have hundreds of times the oil that Iraq has, and losing the cold war has left them in a weakened position.

 

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

[AAISkinsFan]

Pete, actually I would, after I had my turn with them. I believe most men would enjoy a night with the trash you presented as your cream of the crop. But would they really want a relationship? Some may but I have my standards. Perhaps the Coulter-Maher fling was just that? A sidetrack from the usual and predictable? Sometimes opposite poles attract?

 

First off howie... I commend you on your forum research savvy which led you to disect my first name from clicking on a picture in my post, clicking on properties and reading my name from photobucket image hosting url. Brilliant! Kudos to you mon frere! Feel free to address me as Pete if you must.

 

I'm glad you admit you would at least have your turn with the crop I presented, it proves you do have some sense about you or at least you once did. Of course you are older now and your standards have changed, but wouldn't you say they have decreased by claiming that this:

 

picture of Ann

 

is attractive? And, btw, we all know people in Hollywood aren't looking for relationships so why even go there?

 

If you slowed down and read, I asked where you got your 'Lib Hotties.' As usual, your link to Ann Coulter is nothing more than another classless web-blog attempting to smear what they fear. One thing I've noticed about Dems/Libs is how they are very ignorant or they outright lie to justify their stupidity. This charade of Ann Coulter's adam's apple is a classic example. Many people know that ALLpeople have a potential adam's apple. It is developed as testosterone levels (which both sexes have) increase. These levels determine the deepness of voice and bulge of the larynx. Many women have an apparent adam's apple. It certainly is not an indication of their sexuality, just their hormone levels. So Pete, now that truth be known, you can admit your ignorance or you may continue to justify your stupidity. Of course, you could avoid either by posting a link to some _real_ proof that Ann is a hermo. The old tired websites that insist on wallowing in their moronic IQ will not suffice. Linking to them will simply downgrade my opinion of you from your being a twit to your being an idiot. As stated, many women have a pronounced larynx. Recognize any of these?

 

I did read howie, that's the difference between you and I - I read and comprehend before I formulate an opinion - you form an opinion, label, and move on. Predictable Just google them and you to will find them. Nothing difficult really (if only finding WMDs was that easy). Thanks for the lesson on testosterone levels and adams apples...I'll just refer to Ann as Pat from now on. Now if you are turned on by Pat and his/her ambiguous genetalia that is your prerogative. I don't care to delve into your sexual deviances. You're in the wrong forum for that.

 

Now, getting back to the real topic at hand here. Some questions for you:

 

1) Please direct me to one of my posts on this forum where I have admitted to being a Liberal/Democrat. (Hint, you can research this by clicking on the my controls tab)

 

2) Since the Iraq war has started can you tell me approximately how many suicide bombings have occured in Iraq? How many before the war?

 

3) Bin Laden issued his 2nd fatwa in 1998...5 years before the Iraq war. What was his chief complaint in that fatwa, howie?

 

Now, I'll understand if you don't want to elaborate 'cause some of the ensuing discussion just might prompt you to think, instead of you being told what to think by the talking heads that are paid to be a mouth piece for whoever funds them. And I promise, I won't adversely refer to your esteemed Ann Coulter any more.

Edited July 30, 2007 by AAISkinsFan

[Furious1Auto]

Just like all the shit that was made up to try to give a defense for going into Iraq. The fact is that we should have never got into this mess. There are no facts that justify our mess in Iraq.

And what is it that your side wants??? I believe it's the same.

Your stuck in a this side that side game they are playing with you. The last so-called immigration reform was supported by both sides and was on it's way to passing until people got wind of it.

I don't think so I'm an independent for that reason. I realize the consequences of an open border. As for weapons inspectors, they where not allowed back in until 2 months before we moved on Iraq. There was a gap of two years with no inspections, and 17 UN resolutions passed against them. Two permanent members of the UN refused to approve unilateral action against Iraq because they had conflicting interest. France and Russia where buying more fuel from Iraq then allowed through the oil for food program, dictated by the resolutions. Then Saddam was afforded one week to step down as an ultimatum. My knowledge of the war is vast and collective, I don't have to make up or manipulate the facts. I watched as it happened don't have to ask, the only ones who will buy into your bullsh-t are the naive and ignorant!

[Savetheplanet]

but I insist that I do not care who dies.........as long as that person has no ties to me, you, or anyone else in this country, Canada, Australia, England, or anyone of our allies.

 

.

So you don't care when women and children are killed in Iraq, Rowanda? What kind of person are you?

Edited July 30, 2007 by Savetheplanet

[Furious1Auto]

Lost your cool, huh pro war boy? Relax, it's obvious meth has gotten under your skin and you can't handle the facts.

 

The difference between you and methos is quite simple - you see the war for what it could be (based on what you are being told to think),

 

methos sees the war for what it is.

 

Now go give yourself a timeout and come back and chat when you can be civil...if ever.

Don't flatter yourselves! You guys are so full of sh-t it's exhausting countering all of your points. Thank god there are ofter like minded patriots on this sight to bat back, and rebut all of this garbage. Imawhosure, If we did tap our own energy and left Iraq for dead. I would be concerned that they where not done with us! regardless of the war and the current status qua we never provoked the previous attacks! If we could just go on our merry way without fear then I'd be all for a complete withdraw. This propagated story that Methos is conveying about us losing or our chances of success is a joke. We took control of Iraq in a little over a month and 5 years latter still have control while suffering a minute % of casualties as compared to our opposition. The only ground we are losing is political in this country. I'm posting to let the Dems who claim to speak for the majority, know that there argument is lame and dangerous and that they don't represent nearly as many as they suggest!

Edited July 30, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[fmccap]

As for weapons inspectors, they where not allowed back in until 2 months before we moved on Iraq. There was a gap of two years with no inspections, and 17 UN resolutions passed against them. My knowledge of the war is vast and collective, I don't have to make up or manipulate the facts. I watched as it happened don't have to ask, the only ones who will buy into your bullsh-t are the naive and ignorant!

Naive and ignorant? 2 months before Mar. 03? Hans Blix was saying since at least Dec. 02 that nothing was there.

 

Take a look at the facts of the bullshit you are buying.

[fmccap]

I would be concerned that they where not done with us! regardless of the war and the current status qua we never provoked the previous attacks! If we could just go on our merry way without fear then I'd be all for a complete withdraw.

We never provoked the attacks?????????????

 

They said they don't want us occupying there land, and we continued to do so.

[Furious1Auto]

Naive and ignorant? 2 months before Mar. 03? Hans Blix was saying since at least Dec. 02 that nothing was there.

 

Take a look at the facts of the bullshit you are buying.

I know what his report concluded! He said there where none. The problem was that the sight tours where conducted by Iraqis and that the facilities in question where not totally surrendered to the inspectors. Even CNN, NBC, and ABC was reporting it, We had other intel that suggested to the contrary. I did not start watching FOX until I got bored with their commercial type format! When the first of Saddam's palaces was seized the Iraqi Republican Guard and government where reporting that we where lying on Al Jazeera T.V. while I was watching the soldiers taking a tour of the palace on FOX.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[Furious1Auto]

We never provoked the attacks?????????????

 

They said they don't want us occupying there land, and we continued to do so.

What Americans or Christians? To call the attack in 2001 a sweet from Bin Laden, then refer to this ideological war as a Jihad implies that where being attack for our religious beliefs. I personally will die to defend my religion, but I don't go into others houses killing them because they won't convert. I won't strap myself with a bomb and walk in to a area highly populated with civilians, and blow myself up to kill others because they don't pray to Jesus Christ. Call it a Jihad if you wish but if you shoot at us you will pay dearly! That's why I have such a problem with gay marriage. I don't care what others do in their own household as long as they don't impose it on me or flaunt it. I don't want to go to a theater and see two people making out and distracting me, let alone two men! What they do is their business. I even believe in civil unions, let them join and share all the rights and benefits of a married couple to include medical insurance. But I don't like to hear that gay people have the "right" to be married. The word marriage is defined in my holy book, the basis of my religion. The bible defines the word marriage as the union between a man and a women. Now by accepting homosexuality you are rejecting my religion, Because the bible also says that no man shall lay with another man as he does a women. So if you reject my religion then how are you afforded the "rights" within it? The idea that gay people have a right to a ritual that was defined and created in the oldest holy publication on earth, is a perversion and mockery of my religion. I'm not Jewish and don't have a "right" to a bar mitzvah. And if radicals want me dead for praying to Jesus, then I will kill to defend my freedom of religion!! Edited July 30, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[AAISkinsFan]

I retract my last statement...at least the I'll refrain from givin Ann a hard time part.

 

I have to share one last photo, howie should guess this one easily:

 

Edited July 30, 2007 by AAISkinsFan

[Furious1Auto]

Is that your profile pic?

Edited July 30, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[Savetheplanet]

We took control of Iraq in a little over a month and 5 years latter still have control while suffering a minute % of casualties as compared to our opposition. The only ground we are losing is political in this country.

You are joking right? Control? We have never had control from day one of the invasion. Remember the looting? If we have control how come oil production is still down? How about water and electric, are they back to normal? Food? Medicine?

How about a functioning Govt. Economic growth? A functioning Judicial system?

There is a civil war going on over there and people are being killed everyday.

 

As far as your post about religion, I think it is a perfect example of how both fanitical religious sides put us non believers at risk!

You come across as another rapture freak, I don't care if you freaks kill eatchother, just as long as it doesn't affect us, but it always dose.

 

And you know no one has said anything about Israel, you can't talk about Iraq and the war on terrorism without talking about Israel!

You guys keep talking about how Saddam defied UN resoulutions, well you know who has defied the most UN resolutions since it's founding? Israel.

 

There are many reasons terrorists are pissed off, it's not just a religous thing remember the Iran passenger jet our military shot down in the 80's? Killing 200+ ppl. (of course whosure don't care about the inocent baby towlheads)

So Furious, are you one of these people? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenth...th_b_57826.html

 

 

As far as the coal thing goes, we should debate coal on the global warming thread ----- http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...689&st=1020

 

But yeah, coal is NOT the answer for energy in the future, why can't we go with wind power, Nuclear, Solar etc.?

Here is the recent study on CTL by MIT, and Congress left CTL out of the new energy bill so you can forget about CTL Whosure, it's dead in the water. (pun intended)

http://web.mit.edu/coal/

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business...amp;oref=slogin

 

 

 

 

You guys can cry all you want but Iraq will be the issue that will give the Democrats the White house in "08" along with more seats in the house and the senate. Wich makes me happy because a Democratic Govt. will be more friendly to the environment! Watch for more Republicans to distance themselves from Bush and Iraq after Sept.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Savetheplanet

[Furious1Auto]

You are joking right? Control? We have never had control from day one of the invasion. Remember the looting? If we have control how come oil production is still down? How about water and electric, are they back to normal? Food? Medicine?

How about a functioning Govt. Economic growth? A functioning Judicial system?

There is a civil war going on over there and people are being killed everyday.

Don't kid yourself we have control of Iraq in large, although there are several provinces where insurgence resist. Hell we have gang ridden territory's in the US. You can't completely change an inbreed ideology over night.

As far as your post about religion, I think it is a perfect example of how both fanitical religious sides put us non believers at risk!

You come across as another rapture freak, I don't care if you freaks kill eatchother, just as long as it doesn't affect us, but it always dose.

What puts us at risk is the inability to recognize or react to a threat!

And you know no one has said anything about Israel, you can't talk about Iraq and the war on terrorism without talking about Israel!

You guys keep talking about how Saddam defied UN resoulutions, well you know who has defied the most UN resolutions since it's founding? Israel.

Israel is one of our allies, and is under constant attack. Don't you remember their intense fighting with Hezbollah just a few short months ago!

There are many reasons terrorists are pissed off, it's not just a religous thing remember the Iran passenger jet our military shot down in the 80's? Killing 200+ ppl. (of course whosure don't care about the inocent baby towlheads)

So Furious, are you one of these people? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenth...th_b_57826.html

As far as the coal thing goes, we should debate coal on the global warming thread ----- http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...689&st=1020

I have compassion for the innocent, but realize their loss is for the safety of our citizens.

But yeah, coal is NOT the answer for energy in the future, why can't we go with wind power, Nuclear, Solar etc.? That is subjective!

Here is the recent study on CTL by MIT, and Congress left CTL out of the new energy bill so you can forget about CTL Whosure, it's dead in the water. (pun intended)

http://web.mit.edu/coal/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business...amp;oref=slogin

You guys can cry all you want but Iraq will be the issue that will give the Democrats the White house in "08" along with more seats in the house and the senate. Wich makes me happy because a Democratic Govt. will be more friendly to the environment! Watch for more Republicans to distance themselves from Bush and Iraq after Sept.

I do foresee a democrat taking the whitehouse, it's Funny Iraq though is what got GW reelected in 04', people realized that the democrats are soft on terror. I would not fool myself into thinking that the dems are on the side of enviro's though, you'd be playing yourself like the AFL-CIO. All these politicians care about are campaign contributions!

Edited July 30, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[DukeNukem]

Savetheplanet, based on all the posts of yours I have read I feel you need some help. The solution to 99% of your problem is as easy as a one way ticket to France. Please drop off your passport on the way out!

[Savetheplanet]

Savetheplanet, based on all the posts of yours I have read I feel you need some help. The solution to 99% of your problem is as easy as a one way ticket to France. Please drop off your passport on the way out!

I will go if you buy the ticket, France is cool!!!!

[Furious1Auto]

I will go if you buy the ticket, France is cool!!!!

Why don't you just swim there, and save on carbon emissions!

Edited July 30, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[Pumpmaster]

Why don't you just swim there, and save on carbon emissions!

 

More of what you isolated, indoctrinated, and ignorant rightwingnuts have caused: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/30/2860/

[Furious1Auto]

More of what you isolated, indoctrinated, and ignorant rightwingnuts have caused: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/30/2860/

You got some nerve to be calling anyone ignorant!

[Pumpmaster]

You got some nerve to be calling anyone ignorant!

 

Oh, this is sweet: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/29/...raq-Mahmoud.php

 

An Iraqi sports hero telling you to get out---now.

[Imawhosure]

Methos,

 

We are not using coal because of 2 things,

 

1. Enviros block everything.........that is a little extreme of a statement...........let me reprhrase........enviros are up in arms about the method to get the coal called strip mining.

 

2. the volitility of oil prices. Investors are scared to death that IF the United States converts, OPRICK will dump the price of oil just to put them under. Oil MUST remain above 37 bucks a barrel (I believe) to make keep it flowing at a profit.

 

As far as DARKS (only in capitals to get his attention) assertion of where we get our oil from, he could very well be correct, and I will assume he is...........therefore Dark, for the purpose of expediency, we will again agree.

 

But the reason Iraq is so valuable even if we DO NOT get our oil from them is------------>anytime an oil producer sneezes, the price rises causing destabilization. Just follow the oil market and you will see my words ring true.

 

From what I understand, Iraq has the second largest underground oil reserves in the Middle East. Just as a stable US friendly Saudi Arabia is in the Wests best interest, so is a friendly Iraq.

 

Finally, I am not sold that a democrat will win the White House.............and if they do, IF it is one of the top prospects, (Hillary or Obama) the only one who will bring the troops home anytime soon is Obama.

 

My mind tells me that the DEMS SHOULD win the White House with the mood of the country, but my mind also tells me that unless someone BESIDES Hillary or Obama is the standard bearer, they will lose unless the Repubs run a slug. Both Obama and Hillary are to polar a figures in politics to carry the day.

 

Remember, America loved Bill, but hated Hillary, that has not changed except in liberals eyes. Even my liberal friends say that if it is Hillary, most of them will either not vote, or vote republican. As a matter of fact, most of them are hoping for someone else besides the front runners...........virtually anyone else if the truth be told.

 

For those of you who are smug in believing that the democrats have a lock, you are only fooling yourself. Republicans are running against each other, not a democrat at the present time. When the opponents are picked for the partys, Hillary or Obama will be easy to pick off. Remember, you will have BOTH candidates saying Bush screwed up!!!!!!!! Therefore, since they will agree on that, it will fall back on something else. America is not going to go for the 2 socialists who almost proclaim they are socialist, lol. As long as America believes that the Repub will not follow in GWs footsteps, from my way of thinking this presidential race will be lost by democratic stupidity, instead of won by republican logic, lol.

 

Time will tell for sure, but in the meantime, check out the two top democrats favorabilty rating. When in a mock race with GW, or GWs policys, they win hands down. But when they run against an un named republican who also stands against GWs policys, they lose.

[ebritt]

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

 

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

 

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

 

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

 

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

 

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep.

Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

 

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.

He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003