PDA

View Full Version : Here's what it's all about



morgansd12
02-02-2005, 08:59 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050203/ids_photos_ts/r2490966058.jpg

MR SMART
02-02-2005, 09:55 PM
yea great, bush is responsible for some dumb hick dying and his mom hugs the hag first lady. listen this isnt what anything is about. one, how do we know that this woman was hugging laura bush of her own free will? do you really expect me to believe anything bush says? how can you not tell me that it isnt likly that bush and his cronies either hired some actress to play a part or even more psosibly just put a gun to that ladys head and told her to play ball or shed be joining her son. i was watching bush talking about that marine who died and i just knew from the second he began it was all staged. its all just too convienant for bush. no real mother would do anything but spit in laura bushs face after what her husband was responsible for. whatever!

Stinker
02-02-2005, 10:22 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050203/ids_photos_ts/r2490966058.jpg
A patriotic woman raises a patriotic son who dies. Patriotic woman hugs presidents wife showing she doesn't blame the current administration. It does not suprise me, it does not outrage me, it does not show me what anything bar blind patriotism is about.

Before you rip into me I am a patriot, just not a blind one.

AntonToo
02-02-2005, 10:40 PM
yea great, bush is responsible for some dumb hick dying and his mom hugs the hag first lady. listen this isnt what anything is about. one, how do we know that this woman was hugging laura bush of her own free will? do you really expect me to believe anything bush says? how can you not tell me that it isnt likly that bush and his cronies either hired some actress to play a part or even more psosibly just put a gun to that ladys head and told her to play ball or shed be joining her son. i was watching bush talking about that marine who died and i just knew from the second he began it was all staged. its all just too convienant for bush. no real mother would do anything but spit in laura bushs face after what her husband was responsible for. whatever!

Dood take the edge off and chill on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Yes, I do think Bush carries some very-inderect responsability for this death. But there's no reason to blow things up out of proportion.

I do agree with stinker, critical thinking for some reason just doesn't get the spect and as soon as patriotism is mentioned everybody gets all exited an sht.

housejohnson
02-03-2005, 04:30 AM
Even if that was a legitimate "moment", that would be the first time any member of the Bush cabinet has had any contact with the family of a deceased soldier, he has never attended a single funeral. And this "moment" happened during the state of the union address where there were plenty of photographers present to capture it.....

sounds like a publicity stunt to me

Baby Baby
02-03-2005, 04:32 AM
that fat woman is a pawn of the Bush administration

chrisrock
02-03-2005, 05:21 AM
yea great, bush is responsible for some dumb hick dying and his mom hugs the hag first lady. listen this isnt what anything is about. one, how do we know that this woman was hugging laura bush of her own free will? do you really expect me to believe anything bush says? how can you not tell me that it isnt likly that bush and his cronies either hired some actress to play a part or even more psosibly just put a gun to that ladys head and told her to play ball or shed be joining her son. i was watching bush talking about that marine who died and i just knew from the second he began it was all staged. its all just too convienant for bush. no real mother would do anything but spit in laura bushs face after what her husband was responsible for. whatever!

Seriously man.. Change your screen name.

morgansd12
02-03-2005, 08:12 AM
Here's what it's all ab... 02-03-2005 04:58 AM vote bush



waaaaah

JUSA
02-03-2005, 08:24 AM
Here's what it's all ab... 02-03-2005 04:58 AM vote bush



waaaaah Someone was up at 4:58am? And they neg rep'ped you? Well, unless it was Mr. Smart or that Satan fellow, nobody else has bothered to challenge you here.

Rep system needs achangin',

JUSA

sticklegs
02-03-2005, 08:33 AM
yea great, bush is responsible for some dumb hick dying and his mom hugs the hag first lady. listen this isnt what anything is about. one, how do we know that this woman was hugging laura bush of her own free will? do you really expect me to believe anything bush says? how can you not tell me that it isnt likly that bush and his cronies either hired some actress to play a part or even more psosibly just put a gun to that ladys head and told her to play ball or shed be joining her son. i was watching bush talking about that marine who died and i just knew from the second he began it was all staged. its all just too convienant for bush. no real mother would do anything but spit in laura bushs face after what her husband was responsible for. whatever!

you know they don't have to put a gun to her head, they use alien mind control chips, you know the ones the put in all the people in the red states. In 4 more years they will have them in the blue states too and then we are just a few steps away from taking over the world ha ha ha ha ha ...........

sticklegs
02-03-2005, 08:37 AM
Even if that was a legitimate "moment", that would be the first time any member of the Bush cabinet has had any contact with the family of a deceased soldier, he has never attended a single funeral. And this "moment" happened during the state of the union address where there were plenty of photographers present to capture it.....

sounds like a publicity stunt to me

This is not the first meeting with deceased soldier's families, he has meet with many families and we have gone over wy he has not attended funerals many times.

housejohnson
02-03-2005, 10:24 AM
This is not the first meeting with deceased soldier's families, he has meet with many families and we have gone over wy he has not attended funerals many times.

Surely you do not think a nationally televised embrace was purely coincidental. Even the bush backers have to admit this was a set up.

That Satan fellow, heh. And I have no idea what time zone this web site is in because it frequently says I have posted at 4AM and it is like 10AM. And I never neg or positive rep by the way, and if i did it surely would not be with a vote bush.

JUSA
02-03-2005, 10:55 AM
And I never neg or positive rep by the way, and if i did it surely would not be with a vote bush. I was just saying that, IMO, only either you or Smart had the right in my mind to neg rep anyone in this thread since you two are the only ones who had been willing to engage in debate... I wasn't suggesting you had... and it probably wasn't Smart, either, since his rep would make that a meaningless gesture.

JUSA

bgzee
02-03-2005, 11:12 AM
This is really the first thing that came to mind when i saw that...

http://img219.exs.cx/img219/628/untitled11ns.gif

morgansd12
02-03-2005, 11:37 AM
This is really the first thing that came to mind when i saw that...

http://img219.exs.cx/img219/628/untitled11ns.gif

That's OK. During WW2 there were Americans who sympathized with the Germans too.

bgzee
02-03-2005, 12:07 PM
That's OK. During WW2 there were Americans who sympathized with the Germans too.

:rolleyes:

seriously, who applauds grieving parents??

JUSA
02-03-2005, 12:09 PM
:rolleyes:

seriously, who applauds grieving parents?? The terrorists (the fact that they're grieving).

JUSA

sticklegs
02-03-2005, 12:10 PM
:rolleyes:

seriously, who applauds grieving parents??

everyone in the building that night

meshawn
02-03-2005, 01:50 PM
the state of the union is a show. and the president directs the show. would you deny that a ****load of mothers are angry at the administration? why doesnt he introduce them?

Stinker
02-03-2005, 06:36 PM
That's OK. During WW2 there were Americans who sympathized with the Germans too.
Being opposed to Bush is not the same as supporting nazi germany.

meshawn
02-03-2005, 07:20 PM
Being opposed to Bush is not the same as supporting nazi germany.

yes it is. as a matter of fact, disagreeing with the president is down right communist...

TDW586
02-03-2005, 07:22 PM
Being opposed to Bush is not the same as supporting nazi germany.


He didn't say it was, but way to evade the point. Thumbs up!

Stinker
02-03-2005, 07:45 PM
He didn't say it was, but way to evade the point. Thumbs up!
If you think I missed the point please inform me. Meshawn's comment supported mine so if your going to disagree give me a reason because right now I feel my comment was valid.

TDW586
02-03-2005, 07:48 PM
If you think I missed the point please inform me. Meshawn's comment supported mine so if your going to disagree give me a reason because right now I feel my comment was valid.


Being opposed to Bush is not tantamount to supporting Hitler. The general anti-American and pro-terrorist mood of the relevent remarks is.

ComfortEagle
02-03-2005, 08:44 PM
would you deny that a ****load of mothers are angry at the administration? why doesnt he introduce them?

No, but name one President that hasn't had someone angry at him. What possible purpose would introducing them serve?


Even if that was a legitimate "moment", that would be the first time any member of the Bush cabinet has had any contact with the family of a deceased soldier, he has never attended a single funeral.

So? You expect the Bush and his cabinet to attend funerals? Then you'd really have something to bitch at.

I suppose you guys were also "upset" about Rumsfeld using a machine to sign the condolence letters to the parents of dead soldiers. Nevermind that no other secretary of defense has personally signed them in the past.

meshawn
02-03-2005, 10:52 PM
Being opposed to Bush is not tantamount to supporting Hitler. The general anti-American and pro-terrorist mood of the relevent remarks is.

that wasnt anti-american and certainly not pro-terrorist.

america isnt about blindly following its leader.
thats why we dont have a king. the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with any king. the executive office has checks including public opinion. its my right as an american to give my opinion on the government. read the 1st amendment.

george bush isnt america. he serves america. so when i say george bush is a dumbass, that isnt anti american.

EDIT: explain to me how that was pro-terrorist btw. thats ****ing retarded.

housejohnson
02-04-2005, 04:47 AM
No, but name one President that hasn't had someone angry at him. What possible purpose would introducing them serve?



So? You expect the Bush and his cabinet to attend funerals? Then you'd really have something to bitch at.

I suppose you guys were also "upset" about Rumsfeld using a machine to sign the condolence letters to the parents of dead soldiers. Nevermind that no other secretary of defense has personally signed them in the past.

No, I actually like Rumsfield. My point was that it was no coincidence that the first direct attention paid to the family of a dead soldier just "happened" to take place during a nationally televised event. I am not 100% sure on this, but that may have been bullsh*t. And, receiving a condolence letter that is stamped is rather rude, I doubt Rumsfield even seen the letters before they went out.

Hartski
02-04-2005, 06:29 AM
Even if that was a legitimate "moment", that would be the first time any member of the Bush cabinet has had any contact with the family of a deceased soldier, he has never attended a single funeral. And this "moment" happened during the state of the union address where there were plenty of photographers present to capture it.....

sounds like a publicity stunt to me


The reason he doesn't attend any of the funerals is because he can't attend all of them.

TDW586
02-04-2005, 09:17 AM
that wasnt anti-american and certainly not pro-terrorist.

america isnt about blindly following its leader.
thats why we dont have a king. the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with any king. the executive office has checks including public opinion. its my right as an american to give my opinion on the government. read the 1st amendment.

george bush isnt america. he serves america. so when i say george bush is a dumbass, that isnt anti american.

EDIT: explain to me how that was pro-terrorist btw. thats ****ing retarded.



"yea great, bush is responsible for some dumb hick dying and his mom hugs the hag first lady. listen this isnt what anything is about. one, how do we know that this woman was hugging laura bush of her own free will? do you really expect me to believe anything bush says? how can you not tell me that it isnt likly that bush and his cronies either hired some actress to play a part or even more psosibly just put a gun to that ladys head and told her to play ball or shed be joining her son. i was watching bush talking about that marine who died and i just knew from the second he began it was all staged. its all just too convienant for bush. no real mother would do anything but spit in laura bushs face after what her husband was responsible for. whatever!"

If you don't see any problems with this statement, I can't help you. Sanity is not something that can be logically shown through debate.

meshawn
02-04-2005, 10:53 AM
"yea great, bush is responsible for some dumb hick dying and his mom hugs the hag first lady. listen this isnt what anything is about. one, how do we know that this woman was hugging laura bush of her own free will? do you really expect me to believe anything bush says? how can you not tell me that it isnt likly that bush and his cronies either hired some actress to play a part or even more psosibly just put a gun to that ladys head and told her to play ball or shed be joining her son. i was watching bush talking about that marine who died and i just knew from the second he began it was all staged. its all just too convienant for bush. no real mother would do anything but spit in laura bushs face after what her husband was responsible for. whatever!"

If you don't see any problems with this statement, I can't help you. Sanity is not something that can be logically shown through debate.

TDW586, thats not the statement morgon quoted when he wrote that. it was a harmless edited screenshot.

...As for this statement, i dont disagree with the bulk of it. how can we trust the president? how do we know she wasnt intimidated? Should we have blindly trusted Nixon? however, its out of line when he mocks the dead. (especially a man who fought for our country) by calling him a dumb hick.

but again, this wasnt what was quoted.

TDW586
02-04-2005, 12:06 PM
TDW586, thats not the statement morgon quoted when he wrote that. it was a harmless edited screenshot.

...As for this statement, i dont disagree with the bulk of it. how can we trust the president? how do we know she wasnt intimidated? Should we have blindly trusted Nixon? however, its out of line when he mocks the dead. (especially a man who fought for our country) by calling him a dumb hick.

but again, this wasnt what was quoted.


Okay. Fine.


"This is really the first thing that came to mind when i saw that...

http://img219.exs.cx/img219/628/untitled11ns.gif"

That's what was quoted. It's blind, idiotic rage at a president, attacking him for anything and everything. In this case, clapping.

THAT is anti-american and that is, in effect, pro-terrorist.

bgzee
02-04-2005, 12:27 PM
Okay. Fine.


"This is really the first thing that came to mind when i saw that...

http://img219.exs.cx/img219/628/untitled11ns.gif"

That's what was quoted. It's blind, idiotic rage at a president, attacking him for anything and everything. In this case, clapping.

THAT is anti-american and that is, in effect, pro-terrorist.

You wanna know what is anti-american? Making a media event out of the death of a soldier. If they truely cared for this soldier and the grieving parents, this would have been done in private without the media there to report on it.

Tell me, if you were to console a friend who had just lost a loved one, would you smile and clap for them?

I find it quiet ironic that photos of caskets being flown to the united states are not allowed, yet when Bush chooses to honor the death of a soldier with a parent who still supports him as a president it turns out to be a big media event.

Bush and this administration in general are masters at playing off peoples emotions and fears. Exploiting the victims of 9-11 to justify an unrelated war in Iraq. Creating a terror alert system to warn us of "unsubstanciated threats" from "unknown sources" during what just so coincidentally happened to be very strategic times.

You even use the same rhetoric as the president, calling anyone who happens not to fall on the far right of the political spectrum "anti-american." You and millions of other Americans are like an impressionable little kid looking up to a bad role model.

TDW586
02-04-2005, 01:03 PM
You wanna know what is anti-american? Making a media event out of the death of a soldier. If they truely cared for this soldier and the grieving parents, this would have been done in private without the media there to report on it.

Tell me, if you were to console a friend who had just lost a loved one, would you smile and clap for them?

I find it quiet ironic that photos of caskets being flown to the united states are not allowed, yet when Bush chooses to honor the death of a soldier with a parent who still supports him as a president it turns out to be a big media event.

Bush and this administration in general are masters at playing off peoples emotions and fears. Exploiting the victims of 9-11 to justify an unrelated war in Iraq. Creating a terror alert system to warn us of "unsubstanciated threats" from "unknown sources" during what just so coincidentally happened to be very strategic times.

You even use the same rhetoric as the president, calling anyone who happens not to fall on the far right of the political spectrum "anti-american." You and millions of other Americans are like an impressionable little kid looking up to a bad role model.



Hey, **** you too.

I'm not right wing. And I know damned well that if my father were injured or, god forbid, killed, in Iraq, I would still be happy to shake the president's hand.

His cause is worthy.

bgzee
02-04-2005, 01:06 PM
His cause is worthy.


Which cause? It changes so often... I just can't keep up.

Hartski
02-04-2005, 01:10 PM
Which cause? It changes so often... I just can't keep up.

The huge untapped potential of Girls Gone Wild-Iraq.

As soon as the Jello shots clear customs, we're in buisiness

TDW586
02-04-2005, 01:13 PM
Which cause? It changes so often... I just can't keep up.


Use all the sarcasm you want. Liberating the Iraqi people was worth it. Don't care if he wanted the oil, don't care about WMD's, it was worth it.

My father told me that every one of the 800 Iraqis he helped get to the elections was like a little kid, they were so excited to be able to actually choose their leader.

If you don't think that's worth it, so be it.

meshawn
02-04-2005, 04:05 PM
Use all the sarcasm you want. Liberating the Iraqi people was worth it. Don't care if he wanted the oil, don't care about WMD's, it was worth it.

My father told me that every one of the 800 Iraqis he helped get to the elections was like a little kid, they were so excited to be able to actually choose their leader.

If you don't think that's worth it, so be it.

to you it was worth it. to most it wasnt. there are a ****load of countries living in oppression. why pick iraq. face it, he ****ed up. he should be held accountable.

yes they are voting now and that is great. whats great about it is that they are allowed to express their opinion about how the government should govern. a post mocking the presidents little show is just someone expressing his opinion.


haha. pro terrorist. if anything your views are more in line with saddams.

TDW586
02-04-2005, 04:28 PM
haha. pro terrorist. if anything your views are more in line with saddams.

Care to back this up?

If you can show me that Saddam Hussein was a Libretarian, I'd love to see it.

meshawn
02-04-2005, 04:54 PM
no he isnt a libretarian but if anybody mocked the president (him) he would consider that person to be an enemy of the state. thus comparison to you...

morgansd12
02-04-2005, 06:07 PM
to you it was worth it. to most it wasnt. there are a ****load of countries living in oppression. why pick iraq?



The President explained that all very well in his State of the Union speech before the war. You should read it at www.whitehouse.gov because I think you missed some very important points on this issue if you can't articulate the reasons for the invasion that were reiterated multiple times throughout the last couple of years.

Also, check a map....isn't it convenient that the US Military now surrounds Iran and has a shared border with most of the middle east dirtbag coutnries which sponsor terrorism?

hmmm...

I hope you don't need a better explanation than that.

meshawn
02-04-2005, 06:54 PM
ive read his reasoning and its all crap. its totally different than the reasoning he presented BEFORE the war btw.

Stinker
02-04-2005, 07:41 PM
Okay. Fine.


"This is really the first thing that came to mind when i saw that...

http://img219.exs.cx/img219/628/untitled11ns.gif"

That's what was quoted. It's blind, idiotic rage at a president, attacking him for anything and everything. In this case, clapping.

THAT is anti-american and that is, in effect, pro-terrorist.

Being anti war is not being anti Bush, being anti Bush is not being anti American and being anti American is not being pro terrorism.

morgansd12
02-04-2005, 07:49 PM
Which cause? It changes so often... I just can't keep up.

REad the speeches Bush made days after 9/11. Nothing has changed but the angles of attacks on his constant unwavering position.

If my son were killed in war I would be honored to have had the President honor him in front of the entire country. The election is OVER. Bush has NOTHING to gain politically from that.

It doesn't matter though what you say or lie about really...there were Americans who sympathized with the Germans in WW2 as well, with every passing day of success their ridiculous assertions and lies become more evidently the rantings of the loony. Same situation here.

morgansd12
02-04-2005, 07:52 PM
ive read his reasoning and its all crap. its totally different than the reasoning he presented BEFORE the war btw.

It's exactly the same.

Unless you can take a few sentences and post them out of context....yaaawwn.

meshawn
02-04-2005, 07:58 PM
wtf are you smoking? we went in for Weopons of Mass Destruction. they found none.

morgansd12
02-04-2005, 08:15 PM
wtf are you smoking? we went in for Weopons of Mass Destruction. they found none.

Geeeezus.


You are not reading the speeches if this is what you think. You are listening to one of several inept sensationalist news media organizations or Air America.

I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through this.

What is stated in crystal clear terms in black and white, publicly accessed by a couple of clicks, repeated in several presidential addresses, and reiterated at every WH press conference......were the reasons for invading Iraq.

Of which the multiple aspects of WMD proliferation was ONE.


Either you haven't done your research...or you are here just trolling for responses by playing the devils advocate. Either way, your a waste of time.

Enjoy living in Bush country till you figure it all out.

meshawn
02-04-2005, 08:21 PM
WMD's was one...that is correct. but it was the MAJOR one!!!!! nobody except for you would have gone along with this w/o the claim of WMD being there

morgansd12
02-04-2005, 08:34 PM
WMD's was one...that is correct. but it was the MAJOR one!!!!! nobody except for you would have gone along with this w/o the claim of WMD being there

The media made it the MAJOR one.

It doesn't matter what I or anyone else would have "gone with". It was the President/Congress who decided not me or anyone else.

This was also a pre-emptive strike. Not having WMD there was not a BAD thing. There was the obvious intention there evident in the refusal to dismantle WMD production capabilities.

Either way...just one of many reasons. If there was ONE major reason that Bush stated, it was the need for those tyrannies to be replaced by democracy or other "governments of the people". That is the only LONG TERM solution. No democracy has EVER fought another democracy.

If you look at his policies, Bush virtually ALWAYS goes for the LONG TERM solution. The problems in the mid-east have only EVER been addressed by short term fixes (build a wall, have ceasefire, send money, bomb a WMD factory, bomb a minor terrorist camp etc...) which have excacerbated the LONG TERM problem.

NOW we have a long term solution (Liberty) in place and the area will be able to modernize and the ideologies of terrorism will fall. THAT is the #1 reason for us being there as Bush has stated time and time again.

meshawn
02-04-2005, 08:51 PM
public opinion DOES matter.

1. Bush tells public WMD exist.
2. elected leaders in congress are pressured into going to war b/c of this claim (pressured by the public)
3. We go into Iraq
4. No WMD are found
5. Administration admits it but says war was still worth it. HA!

housejohnson
02-05-2005, 09:40 AM
We could have made the same arguments for attacking several other countries that were made for going into Iraq. Saudia Arabia has a tyrannical government and North Korea certainly has WMD. Bush was looking for a reason to go into Iraq and fabricated terrorist connections. WMD's, etc. Then add to the fact that Reagen and his daddy were fine with Saddam no matter what he did in the 80's when he was at war with Iran (including the infamous gassing of the Kurds). I have no problem with the war in terms of getting a larger U.S. presence in the area and installing a Pro U.S. regime (and please do not start with that they voted nonsense). But clearly Bush stretched the truth on his reasons for invading Iraq.

And you have to be a moronic twit to not realize the "embrace" at the state of the union address was scripted. I agree with the earlier poster, Bush is a master of pushing people's emotions in the direction he wants them to go.

JUSA
02-05-2005, 09:59 AM
WMD's was one...that is correct. but it was the MAJOR one!!!!! nobody except for you would have gone along with this w/o the claim of WMD being there I doubt that. WMD today or tomorrow, both are bad. One is just worse.

20 years ago, liberals were complaining about how we were fighting the Cold War against the Communists. History has shown they were dead wrong.

I wonder what we'll be saying 20 years from now...

JUSA

morgansd12
02-05-2005, 10:02 AM
Bush was looking for a reason to go into Iraq and fabricated terrorist connections. WMD's, etc.

There is no fabrication to Saddam's terrorist activities and sponsorship. At every crossroads of peace...Saddam was there trying to prevent it by orchestrating suicide bombers to blow themselves up at crucial times of peace negotiations, effectively undermining the peace process.

housejohnson
02-05-2005, 12:11 PM
There is no fabrication to Saddam's terrorist activities and sponsorship. At every crossroads of peace...Saddam was there trying to prevent it by orchestrating suicide bombers to blow themselves up at crucial times of peace negotiations, effectively undermining the peace process.

Sponsoring the groups working against Israel is not the same thing as backing Al-Qaeda when they attacked the US. Bush pushed to find a link from Saddam to bin Ladin when none existed. Most all arab countries support the Palestinians and their fight against the illegal occupation of their land.

morgansd12
02-05-2005, 12:16 PM
Sponsoring the groups working against Israel is not the same thing as backing Al-Qaeda when they attacked the US. Bush pushed to find a link from Saddam to bin Ladin when none existed. Most all arab countries support the Palestinians and their fight against the illegal occupation of their land.

Your missing the long term picture here.

I realize all that, but peace accords being broken exacerbate the terrorist movement over there emboldening not only the Palestinain groups but AL-Quaeda style groups as well. All terrorists in other words.

Most all Arab countries WERE NOT amping up their terrorist connections while they were also sitting at the peace table. Saddam was.

Diesel66
02-05-2005, 04:52 PM
ive read his reasoning and its all crap. its totally different than the reasoning he presented BEFORE the war btw.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

What Congress passed and the President signed, authorizing war against Iraq.


public opinion DOES matter.

1. Bush tells public WMD exist.
2. elected leaders in congress are pressured into going to war b/c of this claim (pressured by the public)
3. We go into Iraq
4. No WMD are found
5. Administration admits it but says war was still worth it. HA!
John Kerry and the rest of the intellegence committee saw the exact same intel the President saw.

meshawn
02-05-2005, 05:22 PM
like i said, john kerry and other congressmen were pressured by bush. our intelligence agencies presented to other UN members and most werent convinced at all. if they thought there was a threat, they wouldve joined our 'coalition'. so we go to war with basically only Britain..

oh im sorry, i forgot poland.

morgansd12
02-05-2005, 05:32 PM
like i said, john kerry and other congressmen were pressured by bush.

That's a good one.

Really.

you had me there for a second.

TDW586
02-05-2005, 05:36 PM
like i said, john kerry and other congressmen were pressured by bush. our intelligence agencies presented to other UN members and most werent convinced at all. if they thought there was a threat, they wouldve joined our 'coalition'. so we go to war with basically only Britain..

oh im sorry, i forgot poland.



How, precisely, did he "pressure" them into voting for this war?

morgansd12
02-05-2005, 05:39 PM
How, precisely, did he "pressure" them into voting for this war?

It's ok.....seriously....don't worry about it. You can repeat for him a million times the logic behind the war and he will ignore it all and come up with some Al-Jazeera conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo that no one can disprove because it is so nonsensical. Blissninny is the word that comes to mind.

meshawn
02-05-2005, 06:17 PM
When the president is on television bringing up the threat of iraq every day alot of americans believe him. remember bush's approval rating was extremely high after 9/11 and afganistan among the public and congressmen are elected by the public.

TDW586
02-05-2005, 07:18 PM
When the president is on television bringing up the threat of iraq every day alot of americans believe him. remember bush's approval rating was extremely high after 9/11 and afganistan among the public and congressmen are elected by the public.


Didn't think you really had anything.