More Stupid Democrat Criticisms

[chevyII]

I bet not one person on this board know that we the US had saddam at the end of the gulf war. Bush decided to let him go telling the sheities muslims we would back them in a civil war to overthrow him down the road. The muslims stood up we turned our back and 10,000 were killed. Now for all you naysayers Ive seen pictures of Bush and saddam siting at a table signing an agreement. Ever think why the general quit the military the day after. The general had him and Bush let him go.

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by chevyII
I bet not one person on this board know that we the US had saddam at the end of the gulf war. Bush decided to let him go telling the sheities muslims we would back them in a civil war to overthrow him down the road. The muslims stood up we turned our back and 10,000 were killed. Now for all you naysayers Ive seen pictures of Bush and saddam siting at a table signing an agreement. Ever think why the general quit the military the day after. The general had him and Bush let him go.

We never had Sadam. Troops would have had to go into Bagdad to get him, and at that time, we abided by the UN's wishes not to invade. You never saw a picture with Bush and Sadam. Now we did tell the shiites or Kurds to revolt, and it's true we walked away...........because the American people wouldn't go for it. Vietnam syndrome. Can't take a casualty. Run for cover with your tail between your legs.

 

[GNandGS]

Uh, you just make this up as you go along or what?

Do you know WHY anything was signed? I suppose you refer to the ceasefire but I dont know what pic you mean.

Our mandate, was to liberate a certain country not remove SH. Since its quiztime apparently do you know which one?

Read slowly:
IT WAS A UNSC RESOLUTION - INTENDED TO LIBERATE KUWAIT. #678 btw...

This was NOT for removing SH. Sheesh.

"The" General? You mean, Schwarzkopf? I submit you dont know of his reasons for retirement. While we are taking quizzes, do you know his response when ASKED if it was time for the fighting to stop? You know, since the job was finished.

Shawn

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by big_buick
Im a Democrat bla bla bla, Repulican bla bla bla. CNN said this, Fox news said that. Can any of you see through the BS their all lying to you to satisfy there own agenda. Repulicans call the Democrats whiney if they dare question them, hey remeber Kenith Star and the millions of dollars spent to delve into someones sex life? Now theres a commision to play monday morning quarterback on Bush (though at least its a real issue), Listen If there had been a "preemptive" strike before 9/11 there would have been riots. On the same token if clarke's book was just against Clinton's terrorist policy the Repulicans would be applauding it. hipocrits one and all.

Oh yea, just my opinion for the record terrorist networks operate using individual cells, killing one man or bombing a city won't stop them, thats just a show for us folks at home.

You're right! Why should we even try to fight back. We can't win. Terrorists are sneaky. They slide along walls. We should just make an agreement with Osama. We'll scratch his back by offering up thousands of American Infidels for him to torture, preferably conservatives. I'll just move to France to get away.

Look, nobody told Clarke to come forward with his lies. Nobody is looking to blame Clinton. We were attacked, 3000 died, and we knocked the $hit of 'em. Clarke's book is just another lie that needed to be responded to. Curious he wrote a book while he was being passed over in his job. Bush and his cabinet must have been rolling their eyes everytime he came gave a briefing before he wrote the book. The guy saw his chance to make millions and get even. You got to give it to the democrats...........there's no limit to the amount of fabrications they can come up with. It's gain power at any cost. No integrity. It makes it a lot easier when you have ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN on your side.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by chevyII
I bet not one person on this board know that we the US had saddam at the end of the gulf war. Bush decided to let him go telling the sheities muslims we would back them in a civil war to overthrow him down the road. The muslims stood up we turned our back and 10,000 were killed. Now for all you naysayers Ive seen pictures of Bush and saddam siting at a table signing an agreement. Ever think why the general quit the military the day after. The general had him and Bush let him go.

I'm not sure where you were when Gulf War I broke out and ended but George Bush didn't sign the cease fire agreement with Saddam. General Norman Schwarzkopf signed it on behalf of the United States with Iraqi authorities. I'd say the photo you saw was doctored and not authentic.

George Bush (and a majority of the American public) wanted to march right into Baghdad, however the mandate from the UN and the authority granted by the UN to oust Iraq from Kuwait stated hostilities must cease once the objective was achieved.

You state Bush let him go and you couldn't be more wrong. The decision to take Saddam into custody or not didn't lie witht he President of the United States. That power was held by the UN and they decided to let him completely off the hook after looting Kuwait dry. We obviously learned from our mistakes and kept the UN at arm's length with Gulf War II.

You need to brush up on your research skills.

 

[ross87t]

They're both (just like 99.9% of all other politicians; democrat or republican) rich, power-hungry people.

I firmly believe most all politicians become politicians, so they can feel powerful, and make themsleves, as well as their buddies, richer.

Ross

 

[ross87t]

I'm sick of our government doing nothing but bitching at each other. Little gets done.

 

[chevyII]

Actually it was Powell,Scwartkoph and saddam. And it couldn't of been doctored as it was film footage. What do you think those men were all doing in the middle of the dessert under a tent signing papers? HHHMMM? A car deal? Ya right. Thats right the UN was runing things because that's how its always been,except for George Bush he doesnt need them.

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by ross87t
They're both (just like 99.9% of all other politicians; democrat or republican) rich, power-hungry people.

I firmly believe most all politicians become politicians, so they can feel powerful, and make themsleves, as well as their buddies, richer.

Ross

I'd say from you're statement that you don't follow what's going on. People aren't inherently evil. Most people want to do a good job at what they do. Are there bad politicians? Sure. Are there bad terrorists? Yes, all of them. Will they kill you or other Americans? This is what it's about. Not who may be filling their pocket.

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by chevyII
Actually it was Powell,Scwartkoph and saddam. And it couldn't of been doctored as it was film footage. What do you think those men were all doing in the middle of the dessert under a tent signing papers? HHHMMM? A car deal? Ya right. Thats right the UN was runing things because that's how its always been,except for George Bush he doesnt need them.

WRONG AGAIN!

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by chevyII
Actually it was Powell,Scwartkoph and saddam. And it couldn't of been doctored as it was film footage. What do you think those men were all doing in the middle of the dessert under a tent signing papers? HHHMMM? A car deal? Ya right. Thats right the UN was runing things because that's how its always been,except for George Bush he doesnt need them.

Bro, the least you could do is admit you were wrong and correct your previous post.

The video you're referring to simply cannot be of George Bush at the singing of the cease fire agreement since he wasn't in country at the time.

May I ask your age in 1991 when this took place?

I'm not sure why you insist GB was there but I'm sorry to say he wasn't, video or not. Your "facts" are just the opposite.

 

[big_buick]

Originally posted by Red Regal T
You're right! Why should we even try to fight back. We can't win. Terrorists are sneaky. They slide along walls. We should just make an agreement with Osama. We'll scratch his back by offering up thousands of American Infidels for him to torture, preferably conservatives. I'll just move to France to get away.

Look, nobody told Clarke to come forward with his lies. Nobody is looking to blame Clinton. We were attacked, 3000 died, and we knocked the $hit of 'em. Clarke's book is just another lie that needed to be responded to. Curious he wrote a book while he was being passed over in his job. Bush and his cabinet must have been rolling their eyes everytime he came gave a briefing before he wrote the book. The guy saw his chance to make millions and get even. You got to give it to the democrats...........there's no limit to the amount of fabrications they can come up with. It's gain power at any cost. No integrity. It makes it a lot easier when you have ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN on your side.

Amazing how you got that out of my post Red Regal T not sure were i suggested to just lay down and take it. I tried to point out the folly on both sides funny how you only saw one. Both sides own networks, radio stations, and plenty of books better used as toilet paper.I trust clarke as far as i can throw him but reiterate if Clarke's book frowned upon Democrats and france(there the same thing aren't they?) Rep. would call him an American hero and say the Democrats fabricated any info questioning his integrity thats the game. Do you really believe that Democrats are the only ones interested in power at any cost?
Just curious what do you think about Bill O'Reilly reversing some of his statements? Ratings? (not being sarcastic)

 

[Red Regal T]

Talking about issues is a good thing. Problem with dems is that personal attacks are normal for them. That's my main beef. If the Republicans question Kerry's voting record, that's not a personal attack yet the dems and the media act as if it is.

As far as O'reilly, I don't know what specific points you're referring to. However, I think Ol Bill is an a$$hole. He's an arrogant know it all who really doesn't get it on many issues. I do watch his show and I find myself saying "moron" quite a bit.

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by chevyII
Actually it was Powell,Scwartkoph and saddam. And it couldn't of been doctored as it was film footage. What do you think those men were all doing in the middle of the dessert under a tent signing papers? HHHMMM? A car deal? Ya right. Thats right the UN was runing things because that's how its always been,except for George Bush he doesnt need them.

That wasn't saddam. Every Ba'ath male above 25 in Iraq tried to look like Saddam. The guy in the video was one of his generals. Saddam stayed in Bagdad.

We were following a UN resolution in 1991 and ENFORCING one in 2003.

 

[ross87t]

Originally posted by Red Regal T
I'd say from you're statement that you don't follow what's going on. People aren't inherently evil. Most people want to do a good job at what they do. Are there bad politicians? Sure. Are there bad terrorists? Yes, all of them. Will they kill you or other Americans? This is what it's about. Not who may be filling their pocket.

Are you serious? LOL!

The "war on terrorism" had nothing to do with my post. My post simply stated that most politicians are interested in power and money.
Don't funkin take it as a cheap shot at "your" beloved GW.
My post was neither for nor against Democrats or Republicans.

Originally posted by Red Regal T
I'd say from you're statement...

What the hell does that mean? "from you're statement"

From you are statement???

 

[smokin'6]

hell, the three stooges will take shots against anyone who talks down their beloved G.W., look at the post the put up, again and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, redundant, isn't is? Now you know how we feel bout ur post!

 

[GNandGS]

Originally posted by smokin'6
hell, the three stooges will take shots against anyone who talks down their beloved G.W., look at the post the put up, again and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, redundant, isn't is? Now you know how we feel bout ur post!

Which "shot"? The part about not knowing "whats going on" or the "are you serious" ?

I dont see "shots" here. I see where there are mistakes (bad!) and misinformation. What about Bush? This whole page was correcting an error. If you are not referring to something on the page you posted - say so.

S

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by smokin'6
hell, the three stooges will take shots against anyone who talks down their beloved G.W., look at the post the put up, again and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, redundant, isn't is? Now you know how we feel bout ur post!

As they say "if you can't argue the facts, attack the person".

Who are you referring to as "the three stooges"?

 

[UNGN]

I'll only "take shot's" at someone who post's blatant falsehoods, and then I'll only call them a dumbass. That's not even a personal attack. At that point it would be a true statement.

I don't agree with everything Bush has done and I am pretty up front with that. Speaking from experience, though, Bush bashing will not make him go away. It will only make his following stronger.

The ONLY way the Democrat's can win in 2004 is stress the positives and have a plan. Do you wonder why you don't hear Hillary Clinton out front on the Bush Bashing Bandwagon? She Even supports the War in Iraq AND the $87 Billion Dollars. She's Smart. Kerry is not. Kerry is a dupe being set up for failure. (deservedly so)

Please feel free to mindlessly Bush Bash all you want... It's a recipe for Democrat Disaster in November.

 

[Low Budget]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
Hey Brian, you wouldn't be French would you? I think you're right though, we should have yelled at Saddam louder to make him comply with the cease fire agreement he signed with us in 1991. Oh excuse me, perhaps you weren't around then?

Good one! It looks like he was around then. (According to the profile listed) Still couldn't tie his own shoes maybe though.