Bush comment...

[goudaman40]

The thing that irrates me about people that want equality are the ones that choose to stand out and decide that they need special treatment because of their choices and decisions that make their lives.

A couple of companies that I have worked for denied my claim for IVF; but a gay couple was allowed to file the claim and have it paid for because of the PC society that we live in today.

Tell me why do we have hyphen americans? Aren't we all Americans? Why do we need to be considered African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Japenese-Americans???

I'll tell you why, it's because of all of the "extra" help you can get from the government.

We all live under the same flag and same freedoms, so why do some people recieve more help than others?? If you want to be treated as an equal, then stop doing everything the make yourself stand out. I.E. Miss Black America . . .

I know Bush can't stop Gay marriages from happening; it's just that it seems like it's the new "in" thing. We know several people that are gay and that's fine; they are great men and choose to live their life, their way. They don't flaunt themselves in front of everyone (this is what I am talking about on the "new in thing") There are so many young people that want attention and choose to play the gay card to get the attention, then become bored with it and are suddenly straight.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by goudaman40
A couple of companies that I have worked for denied my claim for IVF; but a gay couple was allowed to file the claim and have it paid for because of the PC society that we live in today.

As far as I'm concerned this would be classified as discrimination.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy

I'm sorry, was Iraq attacking someone ? I wasn't aware that we were discussing the first Gulf War (which I supported). My answer was more relevant to the situation than your original question, since the reasoning behind the war and the "Bush Doctrine" are what we're discussing.

No we weren't specifically discussing the first gulf war but you brought in the subject of going into other countries because they are run by bad people to. I guess I was trying to point out something that's been stated so many times by the left (and those against this war) who've asked why Iraq and not North Korea, or Iran. They like to use the reasoning if we can only do it in one place and not all, we shouldn't do anything. At least that's how it appears to me. And it appears that you've conveniently ignored that regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy. We are really only talking about the method used.

See above...But nice job of "easing off on the sarcasm" there, elwood

What sarcasm?

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Um, hello? I don't believe I ever stated that one couldn't believe in discrimination. There are still individuals in this country that believe African-Americans should be enslaved, killed, or deported.

They are indeed speaking their minds! No doubt about that. They are lending support to institutionalized discrimination. As I said, that speaks volumes about their character.

I found this article, while reading up on gay marriages. It was posted on 02/27/04:

The latest Pew Research Center national survey shows that voters oppose gay marriage by more than two-to-one (65%-28%), a margin that has remained generally steady since October. Despite the current furor over gay marriage, however, the public generally does not view a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as a top national priority. In the Pew Research Center's annual poll of priorities for the president and Congress, conducted in January, just 22% of Americans said passing a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriages was a top priority. The issue ranked 21st out of 22 items tested.


The complete article

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
What sarcasm? [/B]

I thought the same thing when i read his comment, but decided to let you handle it.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Umm....Sorry, but "fists of fury" isn't really enough to justify the loss of nearly a thousand American lives. Saddam was NOT a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Period. HE WAS CONTAINED...and had been since the end of the 1st Gulf War.

So saving countless future generations of Iraqi's from horrible deaths and treatment was not a noble cause? Sure sounds to me like you're more than happy to turn your back toward the rest of the world. Nice.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by bsears
I, along with many others, remember what it felt like to sit and watch the draft lotteries on TV in the late 60s...waiting to see if your number would come up and you would have to go to Viet Nam. And I also remember that joining the NG at that time was a way to try to keep your butt right here. There can be no denying this, it is simply fact. It is not akin to draft dodging, but to claim it was not an attempt to avoid the fighting is to ignore the way things were back then.

Kerry signed up. No matter what you may think of the things he did after he came home, when the chips were down, Kerry joined the fight. The fact that the two men made such different choices, hits home with me.

I fail to understand why people are comparing Bush's record or lack thereof to Clinton's. Clinton is not running in this election.

I agree with your post, but for different reasons.

You want people to remember what it was like in the 1960's. Many don't want to remember what it was like pre 9/11. They make claims that it should have been prevented - how?

Or, how about back to March of 2003. Everyone keeps screaming that there are now no WMD found. Where were there voices back then?

As for comparing Bush to Clinton, that goes on by both sides. I agree, Bush isn't going against Clinton, but Clinton (Hillary) and Gore seem to be helping Kerry run against Bush.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Actually, only ONE source makes this claim, and it's the "Financial Times". ONE...not four...and it's not exactly what you'd call a "major" source.

Well, this is still from the Financial Times, but now they're reporting the following:

A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.

The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned the UK government's claims about the threat from Iraq. . . .

The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.

Sorry I can't link to the article....they require registration.

wvrevy, you can try to dismiss this all you want as a partisan, single source, but once the government inquiry is published, perhaps that will finally convince you? I'd call that a MAJOR source, wouldn't you?

Bush Lied...oops, maybe we should change that to Bush Told The Truth but The Dems Lied That He Lied.

 

[lucky_bunni]

Originally posted by goudaman40
it's just that it seems like it's the new "in" thing. We know several people that are gay and that's fine; they are great men and choose to live their life, their way. They don't flaunt themselves in front of everyone (this is what I am talking about on the "new in thing") There are so many young people that want attention and choose to play the gay card to get the attention, then become bored with it and are suddenly straight.

HUH? First, are you gay? I don't think so, so you can't possibly know what it's like to be. You couldn't know what it's like to be together with someone for decades and not be able to be married to them. And by your last statement are you really trying to say that all gay people are teens looking for attention?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by goudaman40
The thing that irrates me about people that want equality are the ones that choose to stand out and decide that they need special treatment because of their choices and decisions that make their lives.

A couple of companies that I have worked for denied my claim for IVF; but a gay couple was allowed to file the claim and have it paid for because of the PC society that we live in today.

Tell me why do we have hyphen americans? Aren't we all Americans? Why do we need to be considered African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Japenese-Americans???

I'll tell you why, it's because of all of the "extra" help you can get from the government.

We all live under the same flag and same freedoms, so why do some people recieve more help than others?? If you want to be treated as an equal, then stop doing everything the make yourself stand out. I.E. Miss Black America . . .

I know Bush can't stop Gay marriages from happening; it's just that it seems like it's the new "in" thing. We know several people that are gay and that's fine; they are great men and choose to live their life, their way. They don't flaunt themselves in front of everyone (this is what I am talking about on the "new in thing") There are so many young people that want attention and choose to play the gay card to get the attention, then become bored with it and are suddenly straight.

After reading this post, all I can think about is how thankful I am that I don't think like that!!!

 

[SoonerKate]

Originally posted by goudaman40:
The thing that irrates me about people that want equality are the ones that choose to stand out and decide that they need special treatment because of their choices and decisions that make their lives....

I know Bush can't stop Gay marriages from happening; it's just that it seems like it's the new "in" thing. We know several people that are gay and that's fine; they are great men and choose to live their life, their way. They don't flaunt themselves in front of everyone (this is what I am talking about on the "new in thing") There are so many young people that want attention and choose to play the gay card to get the attention, then become bored with it and are suddenly straight.

Are you suggesting that the people you know who are gay and the "young people who want attention" are choosing their sexuality? Funnily enough, I don't remember choosing to be straight. It seems awfully ridiculous to me that anyone would choose a sexual preference that could quite possibly alienate them from family and friends, marginalize them in the eyes of many and reduce them to second-class status in our country.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Well, this is still from the Financial Times, but now they're reporting the following:

A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.

The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned the UK government's claims about the threat from Iraq. . . .

The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.

Sorry I can't link to the article....they require registration.

wvrevy, you can try to dismiss this all you want as a partisan, single source, but once the government inquiry is published, perhaps that will finally convince you? I'd call that a MAJOR source, wouldn't you?

Bush Lied...oops, maybe we should change that to Bush Told The Truth but The Dems Lied That He Lied.

I couldn't access the Finanicial Times, but I did find this article/link. Tomorrow should be a very interesting day. When I did a search, concerning your post, there were more postings and newspaper references than there was yesterday.


UK inquiry set to back claim Saddam tried to buy uranium By Mark Huband in London

A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.

The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers yesterday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned UK government claims about the threat from Iraq.

The report will say the claim that Mr Hussein could deploy chemical weapons within 45 minutes, seized on by UK prime minister Tony Blair to bolster the case for war with Iraq, was inadequately supported by the available intelligence, people familiar with its contents say .

But among Lord Butler's other areas of investigation was the issue of whether Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler had concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence.

President George W. Bush referred to the Niger claim in his state of the union address last year. But officials were forced into a climbdown when it was revealed that the only primary material the US possessed was documents later shown to be forgeries.

The Bush administration has since distanced itself from all suggestions that Iraq sought to buy uranium. The UK government has remained adamant that negotiations over sales did take place and that the fake documents were not part of the material it had gathered to underpin its claim.

The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.

Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence.

The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment.

The 45-minute claim appeared four times in a government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issued in September 2002, including in the foreword by Mr Blair.

Mr Blair admitted to parliamentarians on Tuesday that WMD might never be found in Iraq.

Article Link

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, c'mon...The Financial Times is the best you can do ? After the huge blow-up surrounding this story, you don't think it would have been covered by every major news outlet in the country ?

Again...you're awfully good at conjecture, but not quite so long on facts, We3...

You challenged the people of this thread to "put up or shut up" concerning the yellow cake story. I found an article from the Financial Times. You responded to this article with the quote above.

After your wonderful, "good at conjecture, but not quite so long on facts" post I continued my search. The Washington Times also posted an article, which referenced the Financial Times article. You responded with, "... Maybe I should have said, find a CREDIBLE source..."

I continued my search and located an article from The Florida Times-Union, which also referenced the Financial Times article. You quickly responded with, "You know, you can continue to cite newspapers all you want, but they ALL refer to the same original story in the "London Financial Times", and it STILL doesn't say what you want it to say. These aren't "new" findings, it's the same one over...and over...and over...and none of them prove a single thing. You can't count two sources when one is simply citing the other.

While you were responding to the Florida Times-Union posting/article, I had found another reference of the yellow cake/Financial Times article in the New York Times. You responded with, "What part of simple english are you having a hard time understanding, We3 ? All of these other articles are simply referencing the initial article from the Financial Times...THERE IS NOTHING NEW THERE.

Well, the Butler Report was released today and can be found at the BBC site. According to Lord Butler's inquiry, "British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim.

 

[kbeverina]

wvrevy--all you have to do is read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. The entire "Bush Lied About the 16 Words" thing is a fraud. Joe Wilson lied. He admitted to the committee he was the anonymous source for news articles regarding what the CIA told the administration.

You out there, fklhou? I said all along the "sources" from the articles you kept quoting were all the same people.

The committee found that Wilson's report after the trip dealt mostly with the infrastructure in Niger and how that related to the possibility of such transfers, rather than specifically refuting the possibility of an Iraq/Niger deal, as he told the committee his report dealt with. He also told the committee he discussed the forged documents, but the report makes no mention of these documents. In fact, the only mention of Iraq pertained to the Nigerien businessman and Nigerien government official who both reported that they'd been approached by Iraq's former nuclear minister to discuss "trade relations".

He admitted he may have been "confused" or "misspoke" when he said he knew the Niger documents were forged because names and dates were wrong--when it was pointed out to him he'd never seen them and the US didn't even have possession of those documents until 8 months after his trip.

He told the committee that he was informed of the documents by the CIA, but the reports officer testified that he was never given any information about foreign intelligence findings since that information was classified. So, either he knew it and lied or his wife told him and revealed classified information to him. Meeting notes were provided to back up the claim that they didn't tell him about the foreign intelligence.

The report says that there were not real inconsistencies with names and dates in the foreign intelligence report, as Wilson told the Washington Post. His info was graded a "3", which the Intelligence Committee implied was mainly for his reports from the Nigeriens approached by the Iraqis. Without that, the findings from his trip were almost useless--the govt. denied it. This is intelligence?

The committee also found that he lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with the trip--they produced a memorandum she wrote to her boss suggesting him for the trip.

George Tenet and the White House have never backed down from saying they believed the foreign intelligence was good. There was reportedly a lot more going on behind the scenes last Spring when the administration had to backtrack on the Niger statements. In short, we had the intel from a European intelligence service, but we weren't supposed to have it. That agency refused to allow the UK to let us see it, but we saw it anyway. So we were stuck--how to explain that the "16 words" were based on solid intel without admitting we saw the solid intel way back when the SOTU was written.

One of the most intriguing questions of this whole thing remains--who forged those documents? Lots of tinfoil hat theories going around on that one.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by SoonerKate
Are you suggesting that the people you know who are gay and the "young people who want attention" are choosing their sexuality? Funnily enough, I don't remember choosing to be straight. It seems awfully ridiculous to me that anyone would choose a sexual preference that could quite possibly alienate them from family and friends, marginalize them in the eyes of many and reduce them to second-class status in our country.

Well said
Viking
Straight by coincidence

 

[jason]

Originally posted by goudaman40
The thing that irrates me about people that want equality are the ones that choose to stand out and decide that they need special treatment because of their choices and decisions that make their lives.

A couple of companies that I have worked for denied my claim for IVF; but a gay couple was allowed to file the claim and have it paid for because of the PC society that we live in today.

Tell me why do we have hyphen americans? Aren't we all Americans? Why do we need to be considered African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Japenese-Americans???

I'll tell you why, it's because of all of the "extra" help you can get from the government.

We all live under the same flag and same freedoms, so why do some people recieve more help than others?? If you want to be treated as an equal, then stop doing everything the make yourself stand out. I.E. Miss Black America . . .

I know Bush can't stop Gay marriages from happening; it's just that it seems like it's the new "in" thing. We know several people that are gay and that's fine; they are great men and choose to live their life, their way. They don't flaunt themselves in front of everyone (this is what I am talking about on the "new in thing") There are so many young people that want attention and choose to play the gay card to get the attention, then become bored with it and are suddenly straight.

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by lucky_bunni
I was reading through this article on Yahoo:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...o/senate_intelligence_report&cid=512&ncid=716

Bush defended going to war by saying:

"We haven't found the stockpiles, but we knew he could make them," the president said. "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."

First, couldn't the same be said about Bush? Second, so anyone who "could" make stockpiles of WMDs should be taken on by the U.S.?

Even in this country you have the right to be stupid.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by JPN4265
Even in this country you have the right to be stupid.

And you may even become President