"Go to Hell"

Iraqi citizens are being interviewed as they vote.

One 77-year old woman, holding up her purple finger, said anyone who doesn't appreciate what America and President Bush have done, "can go to hell."

 

To whom was the dear lady directing her suggested course of direction? Iraqi insurgents or liberal democrats?

 

Re: Re: "Go to Hell"

Probably both!

 

It was probably an invitation to visit her!

 

Re: Re: Re: "Go to Hell"

It's hard to tell the difference.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Go to Hell"

OUCH!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Go to Hell"

I was wondering if Osama was on the Fax list for talking point for the DNC....

I know that was rough, and people should decent, but you may want to examine your approch when the enemy uses your words to their advantange. BUT, it really up the the individual..This is the USA....D*mn freedom of speach....

 

Jimmy,

Could you share the link where you read that statement. I would enjoy reading the article.

Thanks,

Paul

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Go to Hell"

Saddam's lawyers are!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Go to Hell"

Do you think the have to pay a fee to the DNC or that they just help out of the kindness of their hearts...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Go to Hell"

Yeah, it goes to the Clinton Legacy Fund.

 

All the unsubstantiated news that fits

Well, as long as we are making up news that fits our stance, I saw a woman look right into the camera and in perfect english say"You know we had nothing to do with 9/11 right? You attacked us without provocation"

 

Re: All the unsubstantiated news that fits

We're not "making up news". Just poking fun at the Dems.

Why is it that Dems can't take a joke?

Maybe it's that whole "element of truth" thing.

 

Hi Paul,

I saw it on television. It was an Iraqi woman voting at one of the polling places in Dearborn, Michigan. In my original post, I thought she was voting in Iraq. I saw it later in the day and saw she wasn't in Iraq.

 

Re: All the unsubstantiated news that fits

I dont really understand that statement. No one has ever said, to my knowledge please correct me if you can quote someone, that he was part of the 9/11 plot. There was recently a story about a half a million documents in iraq tha have direct connection between the Hussans and Ossam bin Hidin'. And i think it a reasonable position that the time the international community spent playing games with Saddam was sufficient to hide or relocate almost anything he saw necessary. This is so polarized now that no matter what evidence is unearthed I dont think either side would be swayed.

I will submit that President Bush pinned alittle too much on him over WMDs, but the UN violations were clear, even though the paid off French swayed the vote in the Security Council. The UN is a whole other debat, lets not go there. The guy was a villian. Ever hear of "The Rape of Nanking" where the Japanese soldier tied CHILDREN to chairs and rapped them to death. One of saddams favorite tortures was to to this to peoples children infront of the parents! The swimming pools full of acid where they would tie weights to peoples legs and dip them in alittle at a time..nice. He was a Villian in every since, and its ok to disagree about the means to remove him, and the implications of that behavior, BUT ultimatly we are better off with him gone.

IMHO....Of course...

 

Re: Re: All the unsubstantiated news that fits

How soon we forget. OK, how about this:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
Text Of A Letter From The President To The Speaker Of The House Of Representatives And The President Pro Tempore Of The Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:



(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and


(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush


From me:
The original Iraq war obsession originated at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think-tank that served as a home base for the many neocons who were rendered powerless during the Clinton years such as Richard Perle, who became chairman of the Defense Policy Board under Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who moved into the number-2 position at the Pentagon, and Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, to name just a few.

 

Re: Re: Re: All the unsubstantiated news that fits

Where did all the wars the Democrats got us into originate?

 

Re: Re: Re: All the unsubstantiated news that fits

I dont want to terribly split hair here, BUT

If you read that it says:

to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, OR persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Notice the OR. It say he has the power to take action against Terrorist, Terror Organization, including Nations(Iraq in this case) OR persons who planned , blah,blah..september 11,2001

I understand your interpetation of the law, and our lawmakers suck because they cant write something that cant be twisted. Im not saying you are wrong, Im just pointing out that it could be read differently. Its ambiguous at best.Ever read the Patriot act? I think it actually say "and other Purposes" . Is that loose enough language for ya or what???


As for the NeoCon...Im a libertarian, and I take offense at them being called conservative. You have to be financially honest to be a conservative and they have not been that, they just spend our money just like the other guys..But not any worse or better than the opposition. But Bush did give us some back, I got 2 kids so it was decent....

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: All the unsubstantiated news that fits

I agree that it can be interpreted that way. But why put it in there? To tie Iraq to 9/11.
And see, that's what's had me pissed off about this war from the beginning. They tied Iraq to 9/11 even though it had nothing to do with it. They played on peoples anger and patriotism to dive into a war the neocons had been planning for years before 9/11. Notice how none of us are pissed about Afghanistan? They harbored Bin Laden for years and wouldn't give him up. We had a rationale (that was true) and we nailed them for it. No problem.

The rationale for the Iraq War is/was

1) 9/11. When that looked thin...
2) WMD. When that looked thin...
3) Freedom, patriotism, democracy..

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All the unsubstantiated news that fits

The probably did put that language in there for that exact reason, But remember the Dems insisted on that resolution so they could get on that bandwagon that they are running from now.

Well, thats still not a far statement, IMHO.

1) It was never an argument articulated to the public by the president that the Iraqis were invovled in 9/11. I have heard multiple times on multiple news services that he wasnt involved in 9/11, but they did question their involvement with Al Quada and the extent of that relationship, but NOT that they help/aided in the actual attack on 9/11. HE also paid for suicide bombers, and after 9/11 we made it clear that if you supported this behavior would be targeted. This has been something that either is misunderstood, misrepresented or is basicly being created for political gain which is sad because we all want to be safe

2) Every Intelligence service in the world said he had them, not just us. We gave him the oppurtunity to let us in, and he was hiding something. His history as well as world intellegence community said he had them. He had also made it clear that he would help any "Enemy of America". I dont understand why some of these Types of leaders insist on backing himself into a corner but he did. Not to mention the horde of other reasons like the UN Violation, HE ATTEMPED TO ASSASSNATE A FORMER PRESIDENT. You know I dont like President Clinton, but if some Hocked up, Tin cup leader tried to bump him off id be for toasting his behind. As for the Intel. If you were the Prez and everyone that had the appropriate skills informed you of a problem you have to depend on the so called experts. THis is how all industry works. My supervisors dont have a clue about my tech skills, they just depend on my info and do there best to verify it, BUT most of it is base on my good reputation. At this point the CIA doesnt have alot of Brownie Points because they have dropped the ball and I have no arguement with people having a problem with the Intel Service. We have to fix that problem, no matter what party/idiotology benefits.Finally lets not forget we gave him YEARS to move stuff around, Since they kick the UN out under Clinton watch, which he did nothing. Those guys are not dumb, sometimes we forget that..

And finally

3) Ok..Hell ya. Democracy rocks, and with Capitalism it provides stability. When you give people freedom and something to have/earn/hold they dont want their stuff blown up.

Now if you want to say Bush made a piss poor argument for the war, Ok Im with you there. He had so much to pull from he should have expanded the scope and not depended on the limited scope of his arguement.

What would qualify a county to be smacked around in your opinion? Can we retaliate if someone in Syria wacked Pres Clinton? What about housing Terrorist and providing Refuge? Training? Supplies? An attack against US Civilians? on forgein soil or homeland? or are you in the "Make Love, Not War" camp? I just want to understand. I want peace, but i believe in the "Peace through superior firepower". It has a strong historical base.

Thanks for letting me rant...