Bush wants money back from wounded soldiers!

[golfhobo]

But, he DOES have the authority to commit troops without DECLARING a war.... which is what he did in Afghanistan! Then he manipulated the patriotic fervor he had nourished, and used some mumbo jumbo and coerced intelligence, to "sweet-talk" Congress into supporting an ESCALATION of the "war on terror" to authorize a Declaration of War on Iraq! Remember..... there were NO Al Quaida in Iraq at the time. (Nor WMD's as it turns out!)

And yet Congress had the same exact intelligence information that he did, and came to the same exact conclusion that he did.

This is where you are, once again, wrong and without understanding of the FACTS, Rev! First of all, only the Intelligence Committee of Congress was "privy" to the same intelligence reports (although still somewhat redacted.) And this committee was chaired and heavily populated with Republicans. What the BULK of Congress heard, was the same Intelligence reports that Bush "approved" once Tennant reworded them in his favor. Based on these LIES, (or should I say NUANCES,) they concluded that they should support the POTUS or face "Civilian Life" come the next election. After all.... the public wanted BLOOD for 9/11!

where we can employ the SHOCK AND AWE that his daddy used in the First Gulf War!

Must have been a different Gulf War than I remember, as there was no "Shock and awe" in that campaign. At least neither Bush targeted asprin factories.

Although I realize that Shock and Awe was Dubya's battle cry, it was only a followup to what we saw during the First War! I was much more impressed by the "end around" movement orchestrated by Schwartzkopf that trapped the bulk of Saddam's greatest fighting force, and obliterated them in their tracks! It beat the heck out of Dubya's idea of letting them go FREE on the battlefield, and then bombing restaurants and whatnot!

Just a theory, don't get all bent out of shape over it. But, it DOES make some of us go "Hmmm......"

Theories, like opinions, are a dime a dozen. And most are worth far less. Logical people see past the theories and look for facts.

When the FACTS don't support the "case," LOGICAL people think, hmm.... there MUST be an ulterior, and more rational, explanation. Leaving the hunt for UBL in the mountains of Pak-ghanistan, and suddenly going after regime change in Iraq, BEGS THE QUESTION. And until we actually KNOW "why," we are left with only theories.

By the way, my local radio station ran a news story this morning (finally) regarding that bill that the soldier received. In the story, it was made very clear that the bill was sent in error, and that there is, in fact, a policy in place where some wounded soldiers are required to pay back some of the money they received. Why would they be required to pay back when they were injured? When the injury is a result of personal neglegence on the soldier's part (ie. they shot themselves, etc).

Oh, Puhleeeze!! Not only is your LOCAL radio station way behind the curve on this story, but they STILL don't have the facts straight! But, I'm SURE the Pentagon is on top of this.... and will make sure NO MORE soldiers try to commit suicide by I.E.D!!!!

[Rev.Vassago]

This is where you are, once again, wrong and without understanding of the FACTS, Rev!

Why? Because you say so?

Although I realize that Shock and Awe was Dubya's battle cry, it was only a followup to what we saw during the First War!

Shock and awe was a phrase first used by military leaders, and repeated ad nauseum by the media.

When the FACTS don't support the "case," LOGICAL people think, hmm.... there MUST be an ulterior, and more rational, explanation.

I see your tinfoil hat is once again firmly secured.

Leaving the hunt for UBL in the mountains of Pak-ghanistan, and suddenly going after regime change in Iraq, BEGS THE QUESTION.

No, you're answering the question before it was even asked.

And until we actually KNOW "why," we are left with only theories.

Theories are not facts.

Oh, Puhleeeze!! Not only is your LOCAL radio station way behind the curve on this story, but they STILL don't have the facts straight!

Sorry the facts don't support your "theory".

[Orangetxguy]

LOL...The old Fozzmiiester likes to prove that he has superiority
over others, by using superb statements such as this!

Again.. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

And this, is perhaps the most poignant comment from Fozzmiester. This and this alone makes Fozzy completely irrelevant.

Go back to watching your remaining two teeth rot out of your ignorant skull.... Why you have not committed suicide yet is beyond me.

http://www.classadrivers.com/phpBB2/...=30923&start=0

Now..this clarifies Fozzy's position on debate.

Go back and watch cartoons idiot..

:withstupid:


As for taking Sadam out of power, Bush and his council should have first "Taken" the head of Osama Bin Laden, brought that head to New York City, and placed it on a pole at the site of ground zero, preserved for all eternity, so all of America's enemies could see, what becomes of those whom attack us, as BIN LADEN attacked us. Had we concentrated on first attaining the head of Bin Laden, we would not have had problems, as we do now, with Iran...at least not anything worse than the stalemate we have had with Iran for 25 years or so.

Now as too Sadam. Do people really believe that there were no other means to remove Sadam from power, than a full military invasion? Or for that matter any other goof-ball dictator like Sadam?

America has had those means, and has used them, for years. If Bush wanted to avenge the attempt on His father's life, and no.. I do not fault him for wanting that revenge or even for taking that revenge. I do fault him for the manner in which he took it.

We did not need to invade Iraq to kill Sadam Hussein.

"Able / Danger" was not always code-named "Able / Danger". That unit has had several code-names since it was assembled in the late 70's. Since the late 70's, that unit has been used quite effectively, by each President whom was serving the post of Commander in Chief. For you Naaay sayers, even President Clinton ordered people killed, whom needed killing. Now..since some piece of crap congressman has "Outed" that unit...(it even has it's own television show now, with all the accompanying theatrics), it does not have the ability to serve the purpose for which it was formed...effectively.

Our regular military could have and should have, concentrated on capturing Bin Laden, severing his head from his torso, killing all of his henchmen, and delivering that head to American soil. Instead..where are we? Fumbling around like a bunch of hacks, with our military people trying to do to many things. Had the troops commited to Iraq been commited to the search for Bin Laden instead...I think that piece of diseased foulness would be dead..instead of making videos to yank Bush's chain.

Bush and his bumbling bunch of idiots, whom by the way, are the same bunch of "Bumbling Idiots" who scr@#ed the pouche with the Vietnam War, could not see their way to THAT point.

And..Rev...whether or not the intelligence was "fixed" IS THE POINT. With inaccurate intelligence, Congress was persuaded to support invading a country. We had all the correct intelligence for "Justly" invading A***hanistan.

But ...just like another on this forum....I'm a nutt job!!!!

I'm just sayin.

[golfhobo]

It is now??? Oh good!! Then we can bring the troops home immediately!

Nope, we can't. But we are getting closer to a time when we can.

No.... we are getting closer to a time that we can recall the SURGE troops, leaving us once again with about 130,000 boots on the ground! This is about what has been suggested will be necessary to MAN the permanent bases for the next decade, and cannot be sustained even NOW without "extending" their tours!

And we'll have no need for the PERMANENT bases we've negotiated for, so that we can defend the Al Maliki government against "All threats, both foreign AND domestic."

We have permanent bases all over the planet, so? It's actually smart to have permanent bases in places where we have had to spill our blood to win freedom for countries. The bases are permanent, but it does not mean that we own them. We can however operate from these bases.

Win freedom for countries?? Oh Puhleeze! The citizens of Iraq were not signatories to any "convention" that required us to fight for them when they were "suddenly attacked" by their own leader! We want permanent bases in Iraq for what? 1) O-I-L, and 2) because we don't have any OTHER permanent bases in the area where we have a good shot at 1) Iran (and their nukes) and 2) OIL!! I might be wrong, but I don't believe we even have PERMANENT bases in Kuwait, who we invaded Iraq in the FIRST war to protect! :shock:

For the record..... I agree completely that we were actually STILL in a state of cease fire from the First War! But, that was NOT a "unilateral" war. WE were acting under the auspices of the U.N. as part of a COALITION. Dubya thumbed his nose at the U.N. when it became inconvenient to his ambitions, and unilateraly launced HIS war on Iraq.

That's just more of your Biushophobia hysterics! The Charter gave ANY member of the then coalition the right to end the cease fire and engage the then hostile government of Iraq. ANY of the coalition members had the right.

And WHICH of them had the MIGHT?? And since they didn't.... WHICH of them came to US and asked us to do it FOR them? We had to DRAG the Brits and Aussies into it with us to save FACE!! We didn't even really NEED them!

HOSTILE government??? Who was he threatening?? IRAN??? He'd done that before, and we didn't even CARE! Who ELSE was he threatening?? We went to war with him the First time because he actually INVADED Kuwait ( Who WAS a signatory of the U.N.) Short of him ATTACKING or INVADING a neighboring country with which we had a treaty of defense, we had NO BUSINESS launching a pre-emptive war against his regime!

EVEN if you accept that he had a technically "legal" right to do so, the END has not justified the MEANS!

Yes the end of the Saddam government was the end result and what was threatened by the worthless, toothless UN.

Regardless of the "toothless" threats of the World agency that you and others despise, when it came down to it, they were not yet ready to sanction our invasion and regime change. Perhaps, they saw no "personal" threat to their family's existence or reputation. [And, as it turns out.... THEY were RIGHT!]

But, what I MEANT was, that the END that we have NOW, does not justify the means, nor the lives, nor the economic turmoil. After 5 years of war, we STILL don't have a viable democracy in Iraq, and probably never will. I am glad that the SURVIVING population will enjoy a freer life someday, but absent their OIL reserves, I can't see why we have cared MORE about THEIR "quality of life" than that of the poor and oppressed in DARFUR!!!

He said he was worried that Saddam was an UNSTABLE influence in the Middle East. And what do we have NOW?? What we have is proof positive that WAR should be a LAST RESORT!

And all the intel point to that fact. [?] The intel was for all intents and purposes wrong, but ALL of the sources were "wrong" but all were led to believe so by Saddam and his government. To say that there was any intel saying otherwise is selective and of course just shows more of your continual Bush hate hysteria

No, the INTEL that the U.N. had was INCONCLUSIVE. And absent of positive proof, they were not inclined to sanction an ATTACK! Sure it is true, and has been admitted by Saddam himself, that he was stupid enough to be playing a "game" with us, letting us believe he had more than he had! And I suppose you think he was the FIRST in history to run a bluff?? And you think that we should PRE-EMPTIVELY attack ALL countries that might be BLUFFING us.... without positive INTEL?? If so, I hope you have MANY more sons!

And ANY recent improvements in the area, MOSTLY as a result of re-arming the Sunni's, only supports the contention that he had NO IDEA how to wage such a war, and thousands have died unnecessarily as a result!

How many wars like this have been fought lately? And of course to say "He" like Bush planned the way the war would be fought down to the last minute detail is would be more anti-Bush hysteria.

Well, let's see..... um..... we could START with the Partisans in France (WWII) and then move quickly to Vietnam! Followed by the recent Serbo-Croatian war (where we couldn't tell friend from foe) and then THIS one! The only recent exception IS the 1st Gulf War, where Saddam was arrogant enough to put his Revolutionary Guard troops on open land against us!

It is a proven FACT that Bush had his Generals draw up plans for an Iraq invasion only a few months after he took office. But, you are right, there is NO WAY "HE" could have had any input into how it would be fought, since he knows NOTHING about warfare! However, he had POLITICAL goals (such as no draft) and he DID, in fact, dictate to Rummy (who obliged him) that he wanted a quick and decisive victory, using a MINIMUM of American force strength! You think some 2nd Louie came up with the idea of "Shock and Awe??" :shock:

IF Iran gets Nukes, and threatens to, or actually does, USE them.... I HOPE to GOD we don't have to rely on the Battle Acumen of someone like Dubya!! Game over!! Our side loses!!

Iran is the single largest contributor to global terror,

Really? then I wonder why we didn't go after THEM instead of Iraq??

everyone knows this fact but loves to portray them as some sort of victim. They will get nukes and they will simply give them to one of the various terror armies that they finance and their bidding will be done. This is unavoidable with all the aid, monetary support and free intel that the global media and the terror excuser's give them.

Unavoidable? Really? Then I wonder why Ahmedinijan is in such danger of being VOTED out due to the negative impacts of all the sanctions he has "earned" for his country?

The American conscience HAS NEVER.... and apparently still DOES NOT.... support PRE-EMPTIVE WAR as a foreign policy! This president doesn't understand that!

Bologna! Pure and simple. The global war on terror has been anything BUT preemptive and the war with Iran has been going on for some time through their global terror armies like Hammas etc.

Um.... do you mean Hezbollah?

So when some country's leader stands flat footed, looks into the cameras and declares at EVERY opportunity that their main goal is to kill American's and destroy the US, that is meaningless to you?

Um.... do you mean kill (wipe off the planet) ISRAELIS???

Talk about a "PHOBIA!" I think you just proved MY point, Fozzy... about the HYSTERIA that this president has promulgated with his "War on Terror!" He's got SOME of you SO convinced that WE are "under attack," that you don't even know WHO the target is anymore......

OH..... were you talking about UBL now?? (who leads NO country)

Yeah.... that guy scares me JUST a bit! Which is why I wish we had MORE troops hunting HIM down, and less in Iraq! :wink:

I think it is time to rethink WHO should be wearing the tinfoil hats!

[Orangetxguy]

Now Golf...Your wrong about the United States caring about Sadam attacking Iran. We cared so much, that we equipped Iraq with the best war material we could build, just so he could do it!!!

[golfhobo]

This is where you are, once again, wrong and without understanding of the FACTS, Rev!

Why? Because you say so?

NO..... Just because you ARE! If you think that ALL of congress was privy to the EXACT SAME intel that Bush was from his CIA director, then you know ZILCH about the Intel business/community, NOR the facts of the case! Heck.... Tennant has written a BOOK detailing how he was "sent to his room" until he could manipulate the intel into something that supported the Prez's case for war! I worried for awhile that our Intel agencies had gotten so incompetent, until I heard about his book, and saw his interview on the MSM! Then, it all made sense to me!

But, since you bring it up.... next time I "say" you are wrong (or full of it,) you can take it to the BANK! Especially if it concerns the mechanisms of the "community." :wink:

Although I realize that Shock and Awe was Dubya's battle cry, it was only a followup to what we saw during the First War!

Shock and awe was a phrase first used by military leaders, and repeated ad nauseum by the media.

Really??? Were you on the battlefield when they said it? Personally, I was sitting in front of my T.V. when Dubya addressed the NATION and, to my knowledge, FIRST used the term "shock and awe." This was only a few minutes after the attack had begun! I can't IMAGINE that he let his Generals use the term for weeks on end BEFORE the night of the attack! Do you just MAKE THIS CHIT UP??? :shock:

When the FACTS don't support the "case," LOGICAL people think, hmm.... there MUST be an ulterior, and more rational, explanation.

I see your tinfoil hat is once again firmly secured.

Then, you feel the same way about every District Attorney, Prosecuting Attorney, and JURY in the land? As..... after all..... THIS is how CRIMES are usually solved!

Leaving the hunt for UBL in the mountains of Pak-ghanistan, and suddenly going after regime change in Iraq, BEGS THE QUESTION.

No, you're answering the question before it was even asked.

Ha Ha! How many times can you be so WRONG in one night?? This question was asked LONG ago! NOT before I "thunk it," but at least well before I ASKED it!

And until we actually KNOW "why," we are left with only theories.

Theories are not facts.

Sell it to the Evolutionists and Physicists.... Mayo!!

Oh, Puhleeeze!! Not only is your LOCAL radio station way behind the curve on this story, but they STILL don't have the facts straight!

Sorry the facts don't support your "theory".

Prove it!

[Rev.Vassago]

I'm done with this thread, and with you in general, golfhobo. You are pathetic - turning a frigging computer error into a rail on everything you don't believe in.

[Twilight Flyer]

Bottom line, there's no point in letting this one go on at all.