Bush's "conversation" w/troops staged

[yeartolate]

Can you say... N E W O R L E A N S ???

Sure, but I have to say....B R O W N I E or C R O N Y or D E L A Y or F R I S T or E N R O N or W A T E R G A T E or I R A N/C O N T R A or well..... there is a list (on both sides of the aisle to be sure) but attempting portray that we have moral high ground over France is well, silly.

France not being able to clean up their own house bears a slight resemblance to our situation.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

It has complete basis in fact. Read about Greenspan in 92 and Fred Barnes warnings in 03-04. There is whole world out there you don't hear about from the Conintern

Your remaining points are nonsensical. There may not be 100% employment, but that is not a logical rejoinder to the point that we prioritize limiting inflating over maximizing employment. Ome does not follow the other.

And if rates increase, and they likely will, overheating will likely be the least important source. First, you are confusing the Federal Funds rate, which is set arbitrarily, and bond yields, which reflect the real market rate of interest considering the market approximations of risk and anticipated inflation. Understand the basic distinctions before you weigh in on a subject. The real rate of interest responds to the federal funds rate which has an component of anticipated inflation, but the two are not the same

I've been in accounting and finance for the past 25 years. Interest rate are at historical lows. Unemployment is low too. Even during the best of times, there are people who aren't doing well economically. Overall, the economy has been improving steadily over the last 2 years and is quite good right now, despite oil and gas spikes due to the hurricane.

 

[MizBlu]

Well said. Lets remember also that while stockpiles of WMDs may not have been found, (many believe they were shipped to Syria) They had everything they needed to get their weapons program up and running as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

At last count, about 29% still buy that fable. .

Lets not forget that the French were working towards that, with the Russians and Germans.

Don't forget Halliburton! .

Some of those French companies were fronts for Halliburton to get around the sanctions.

In addition the horrendous corruption of France, et al, in the oil for food program, falsely lead Saddam to believe that he had nothing to fear.

So just how is Senator Sprinkle's (Norm Coleman) investigation coming along. He was really on a roll until he was figuratively, and very publicly, emasculated by that Scottish poliltician.

And then things really fell apart for Senator Sprinkle when he got a little too close to the truth about Cheney's former (?) employer.

Paging Senator Sprinkle, are you there, are you still alive?

I have no doubt that we would be facing a very formidable enemy, as soon as the sanctions were dropped.

Isn't this rich. We spend half a trillion dollars on defense, and we have to be afraid of a "formidable" enemy in the form of Iraq?

Yup, another full moon tonight.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Sure, but I have to say....B R O W N I E or C R O N Y or D E L A Y or F R I S T or E N R O N or W A T E R G A T E or I R A N/C O N T R A or well..... there is a list (on both sides of the aisle to be sure) but attempting portray that we have moral high ground over France is well, silly.

France not being able to clean up their own house bears a slight resemblance to our situation.

Why can't you admit France betrayed Iraq and the world by taking bribes and siding with Saddam. Yes we have the moral high ground over France on this issue.

 

[frndshpcptn]

"The world should be thrilled that we are fighting terrorists. The terrorists are everyone's enemy."

I get that. But why these particular terrorists? Why not wage war against the Palestinians? Or Syrians? Or Lebanese? Or North Koreans? Where I am confused is why we are in Iraq of all the places in the middle east that harbor terrorists. The Hamas controls Palestine. Hezbollah operates out of Syria. Lebanon has long harbored terror cells. Fundamentalists are bad no matter where they are.

 

[dcentity2000]

Why can't you admit France betrayed Iraq and the world by taking bribes and siding with Saddam. Yes we have the moral high ground over France on this issue.

I really, REALLY hope you're not assuming that you can speak for France here. No-one can. For the record, I believe her to be a fine country, steeped in history and tradition, now one of the major world powers and overall a wonderful, cultured force for good.



Rich::

 

[MizBlu]

The US wants a government in place in Iraq that will be friendly to US interests (ie., oil interests - it also makes for a good military base with it's central location - an excellent addition to the base the US already has in Kuwait which had the valuable water way access. People haven't been fighting over this same land for over 4000 years for nothing!).

Saudi Arbaia, best friend of the Bush family, is also thrilled that the US went to fight their enemy for them as well.

You think the Kurds weren't happy. Those Al-Qaeda training camps the rightwing loves to talk about were in Kurdish controlled Iraq.

And, I'm sure the Iranians couldn't believe their good fortune either. Now, they've got a friend in the Shiite controlled, pro-Iranian government of Iraq.

Hey, thanks, George Bush. You accomplished what the Kurds, Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and Iran could only dream about.

 

[dcentity2000]

"The world should be thrilled that we are fighting terrorists. The terrorists are everyone's enemy."

I get that. But why these particular terrorists? Why not wage war against the Palestinians? Or Syrians? Or Lebanese? Or North Koreans? Where I am confused is why we are in Iraq of all the places in the middle east that harbor terrorists. The Hamas controls Palestine. Hezbollah operates out of Syria. Lebanon has long harbored terror cells. Fundamentalists are bad no matter where they are.

This always annoys me too. If the USA stands for anti-terrorism, why didn't they invade Ireland? If we, the UK, truly stand for anti-terrorism, why don't we now invade the Sudan?

You can't pick and mix your enemies.



Rich::

 

[MizBlu]

I've been in accounting and finance for the past 25 years. Interest rate are at historical lows. Unemployment is low too. Even during the best of times, there are people who aren't doing well economically. Overall, the economy has been improving steadily over the last 2 years and is quite good right now, despite oil and gas spikes due to the hurricane.

If you've been in accounting and finance for the last 25 years, how did you manage to miss these financial lessons?

1) When you spend more than you take in (the US Republican run government), you go broke.

2) When you allow someone (China, Japan, etc) to buy your country in the form of notes, eventually they end up owning your country.

 

[dcentity2000]

If a bully wants to kill you, you may have an adverse reaction. If the terrorists are alive and we are dead -- they won.

I wouldn't call an invasion in response to a direct threat to life or assault on life adverse, would you? Else what would you call Afghanistan?

Iraq was a disproportionate reaction and subsequently fed into the terrorist's hands. They now have a strengthened resolve, a reason for new recruits to join and more.



Rich::

 

[MizBlu]

So according to Rich, if we leave the "bully" terrorists alone, they kill us and they win. If we fight back and kill them, they win?

Let me tell you when you win. When terroism is no longer the focus of your foreign policy, or as Kerry said "a minor annoyance", you've won.

That's it. That's the one victory the Bush administration will never win because without terrorism or the threat of terrorism, they'd be out on their *** because they have nothing else.

 

[MizBlu]

I knew the soldiers were probably "picked" for their views (in the same way that our President's town hall meetings exclude most of those of opposing viewpoints) but I never thought anything would have been scripted. But when I found out that one of the soldiers highlighted was a military media liason I have to admit that I think the "conversation" was a little more scripted thatn I had thought.

And the question still stands: How much did Bush actually know? Or does he even know he's lying when he's lying?

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Let me tell you when you win. When terroism is no longer the focus of your foreign policy, or as Kerry said "a minor annoyance", you've won.

That's it. That's the one victory the Bush administration will never win because without terrorism or the threat of terrorism, they'd be out on their *** because they have nothing else.

This statement really bothers me. You believe the only reason Bush is in office is because of terrorism?? You actually believe in these times we should make terrorism a not so important focus of our foreign policy?? Like Kerry said " a minor annoyance." That statement alone is why Kerry did not prevail. Thankfully. Who else thought terrorism was not a high priority? On who's watch was 9-11 being planned? I think that person was to busy dealing with higher priorities. Monica??

 

[frndshpcptn]

"I get that. But why these particular terrorists? Why not wage war against the Palestinians? Or Syrians? Or Lebanese? Or North Koreans? Where I am confused is why we are in Iraq of all the places in the middle east that harbor terrorists. The Hamas controls Palestine. Hezbollah operates out of Syria. Lebanon has long harbored terror cells. Fundamentalists are bad no matter where they are."

Bumping. Joe, Dawn? Why Iraq instead of other terrorist-supporting nations?

 

[yeartolate]

Are you doubting that a large number (not most or all) of the people who voted for GWB the second time around did so because they thought it was dangerous to change administrations in the middle of a war?


By the way, Kerry's "minor annoyance" comment was certainly trumped by GWB's comment concerning Osama Bin Laden.

I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him

----followed up months later in a debate denying he would ever say such a thing.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't fond of either candidate. But don't pick out quotes as being the "end" of any campaign , because there is a wealth of questionable quotes on either side.

 

[yeartolate]

Why Iraq instead of other terrorist-supporting nations?

A subquestion as well.....what was the nationality of most of the terrorists on 9/11????

 

[MizBlu]

This statement really bothers me. You believe the only reason Bush is in office is because of terrorism?? You actually believe in these times we should make terrorism a not so important focus of our foreign policy?? Like Kerry said " a minor annoyance." That statement alone is why Kerry did not prevail. Thankfully. Who else thought terrorism was not a high priority? On who's watch was 9-11 being planned? I think that person was to busy dealing with higher priorities. Monica??

Who's watch did it happen on and who received the August 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US"?

How much of the American taxpayer money and government time did the Republican Congress spend/waste on witch hunts during those 9/11 planning years?

Btw, maybe you're unaware of this, but the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing were arrested, tried, convicted, and have been in prison since 1995.

Bin Laden is still on the loose. Then again, Bush did say he really doesn't give much thought to Bin Laden. No kidding, George.

 

[dcentity2000]

I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him

Ooops. Both candidates made a bit of a slip then, hmm?

I get that. But why these particular terrorists? Why not wage war against the Palestinians? Or Syrians? Or Lebanese? Or North Koreans? Where I am confused is why we are in Iraq of all the places in the middle east that harbor terrorists. The Hamas controls Palestine. Hezbollah operates out of Syria. Lebanon has long harbored terror cells. Fundamentalists are bad no matter where they are.

I am also curious as to why. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours or the USA. So why Iraq and not, say, the Sudan, Zimbabwe or Syria?



Rich::

 

[What the Heck]

"The world should be thrilled that we are fighting terrorists. The terrorists are everyone's enemy."

I get that. But why these particular terrorists? Why not wage war against the Palestinians? Or Syrians? Or Lebanese? Or North Koreans? Where I am confused is why we are in Iraq of all the places in the middle east that harbor terrorists. The Hamas controls Palestine. Hezbollah operates out of Syria. Lebanon has long harbored terror cells. Fundamentalists are bad no matter where they are.

If we were to go and fight the Palestinians, there would be political fallout from the Israeli's. The Syrians or Lebanese? Perhaps next. The North Koreans? We have to worry about the political fallout from the Russians and Chinese. To take action in that neighborhood (like Kerry wanted to) is unrealistic and suicidal.

We could have gone after many countries - but not all at once. Was Iraq a good choice? Maybe, maybe not (and it is looking like it wasn't a good choice) - but the answer at this point doesn't matter. What does matter is that we are there. We cannot go back and uninvade, nor should we just pull out as others would have us do.

So I have a question for you - should we do nothing because it is difficult? Because we cannot attack all terrorists at once we should not attack any? I grant you, another target might have worked out better, such as Syria or Lebanon - but maybe not. Just my thoughts.

 

[Puffy2]

On who's watch was 9-11 being planned?

Oh, please, on whose watch did it HAPPEN???