For all you Bush supporters...both of you.Follow

Well what part of it was wrong?

[/li]He stayed with in international law with the strikes.

[li]

They used precision guided bombs.

[/li]No US casualties.

Now dont forget the other part:

Bush invades a country and breaks international law with lots of US casualties.

[li]

Bush did invade Iraq

[/li]The invasion was against UN rules and international law

[li]

As of the last couple days 1064 US troops dead and 4194 wounded.

If you take the 1240 coalition dead
+ 11,000 Iraqi civilian casualties
+ 5-6,000 Iraqi Military casualties the body count is actually much, much higher.

Edited, Wed Oct 6 22:15:19 2004 by bhodisattva

Okay so you arent arguing that Bush broke UN rules/international law and got a lot of good American troops dead. Good to hear.


Now as to the percieved threat it turns out both Clinton and Bush were wrong there were no WMD and recent evidence shows that he dismantled all stockpiles and methods of making starting in 1991. Also the same evidence shows that Saddam didnt have the capability to make any more WMD or even to get new WMD projects off the ground.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html

The thing is that Clinton saw that Iraq wasnt following the rules and with UN consent he dropped some bombs and scared the **** out of Iraq and made them comply.

Bush disregarded UN pleas to hold off and let the weapon inspectors do their job, he broke international law by starting an unprovoked war, he didnt use every and all available options to attain a peaceful resolution and he got the United States into the quagmire that is Iraq. Also Iraq while free from a dictatorship is now more unstable than it ever was and has become a playground for Islamic Extremists. (Saddam was a socialist dictator and while bad news kept the Islamic community powerless less they become a threat to his power).

serbia was committing mass murder on live TV. Geanocide in fact, kind of like what is going on right now in Sudan Bush is currently not doing a whole lot about.

spending 77 billion in yugoslovia was necessary and justified.

spending 1 dollar in Iraq is not justified, as the war itself is not justified.

Clinton made sure he had U.N. or NATO support BEFORE he committed to action outside of the protection of our country.

Bush spit on the world community and committed action outside of the protection of our country without support, and begged for it later.

Clinton was a politician.

Bush is just an idiot.

Excuse me for not pulling a varrus. I argue what I think is wrong. I admit what I can't argue instead of spewing random **** and wasting everyone's time.

However, I was under the impression that we didn't really break any laws, we just didn't get their support. Please inquiring minds would like to know what laws we broke.

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm


Geneva Convention
Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;


Not Work Safe.
http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/

Q Mr. President, the Justice Department issued an advisory opinion last year declaring that as Commander-in-Chief you have the authority to order any kind of interrogation techniques that are necessary to pursue the war on terror. Were you aware of this advisory opinion? Do you agree with it? And did you issue any such authorization at any time?

THE PRESIDENT: No, the authorization I issued, David, was that anything we did would conform to U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations. That's the message I gave our people.

Q Have you seen the memos?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't remember if I've seen the memo or not, but I gave those instructions.

Second time Bush was asked about legalizing torture:

Q Returning to the question of torture, if you knew a person was in U.S. custody and had specific information about an imminent terrorist attack that could kill hundreds or even thousands of Americans, would you authorize the use of any means necessary to get that information and to save those lives?

THE PRESIDENT: Jonathan, what I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law.

Third time Bush was asked about legalizing torture:

Q Mr. President, I wanted to return to the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon lawyers have essentially worked out a way that U.S. officials can torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say that you want the U.S. to adhere to international and U.S. laws, that's not very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever justified?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. If I -- maybe -- maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions out of -- from me to the government.



and more

http://www.suntimes.co.za/2003/03/30/insight/in05.asp

This kinda stuff kills democracy, hey ill vote for the guy and i dont know what the **** im voting for. Ill just stick with the viewpoints i have and i dont want to read stuff that might change my viewpoint because that confuses me and i dont like that, so ill whim it away. And how did clinton get in the discussion??? Is he running for president??? Hello? Most deficit in shortest time ever? Isnt that alone enough to impeach someone?

/edit
ive been kinda busy today on the posting, normally i read and dont rant. But the mood im in today + the stubborness of some people made me voletile.


Edited, Thu Oct 7 05:42:46 2004 by Sjans

Well, one thing... Bush could not help that those buildings fell! So that one is "x'd."

Second:

George W. fan: Used to be.
Kerry fan: No.

Lesser of two evils: Kerry

Voting: Kerry

I would, however re-elect BILL CLINTON in a heartbeat. If there was a way to do I would...

*lol* Well, it is worth a try.

Yes, he did get sucked off. Yes , he did lie about it. Yes, everyone has lied. Yes, I like Clinton. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I got this e-mail from this obviously very confused guy.. I feel for him. DON'T BE CONFUSED... I'm here to help. JP


----- Original Message -----
From: Gennarelli, Maria
To: Robinmarie Dessereau (E-mail) ; Marion Pisani (E-mail) ; Louis B Gennarelli ; Louis Gennarelli, MD ; Maria Gennarelli, DMD ; Melissa Gennarelli, MD ; Michael Canter MD ; Vera Salvaggio
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: FW: Confusing



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Myers [mailto:jimmyers@united.net]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:07 PM
To: Vi; Trudy; Tom K; Gennarelli, Maria; Karen; Jim E; Jerry M; gus; Grover; GingerBedford; Dan N; Andrew; HERBJILL@aol.com
Cc: louisb gennarellimd; Don M; Claude Garner
Subject: Fw: Confusing




Subject: Confusing

This was passed me, but I can't understand it.
Maybe you can, I'm trying to get all this political
stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how
to vote come November.

Right now, we have one guys saying one thing.
Then the other guy says something else.
Who to believe. Lemmesee; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Did Bush seriously think that awarding a contract to a company previously run by his vice-president that is already mired in scandal regarding overcharges to the government would be okay? Did Al Gore run Halliburton? Were they under investigation at the time? This is an example of looking at the obvious and making politically foolish decisions... Politics 101.. Romper Room stuff... bad.

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Wrong. Congress allocated a bit over 4 billion for Serbia. That war is over. In Iraq, our "mission" is not accomplished... the job is not done. This week Bush asked for an additional 80 billion dollars. No comparison.

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton moves forward with Nato and UN co-operation, sharing costs of the war. Bush goes it alone and we (you, me, our children, they're children) pay the cost. Absurd comparison.

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad..

Are we still "liberators?" It would be nice to free up one of these Gallup election polls to ask the Iraqi's whether they feel liberated while the have no water, no electricity, no gas (ironic, I know) and are caught in the middle of foreign insurgents and "liberators" who are both killing them and their children. All the while we've created a security vacuum that is breeding terrorists among the disenfranchised Muslim youths and former Iraqi army. Yeah, I feel much safer. Thanks George!
.
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

The Chinese Embassy was bad - and was Nato's doing though Clinton also apologized. I would point out that Clinton also bombed a terrorist camp - the only one that mattered at the time, the one with Osama bin Laden in it. True, he missed. But I would also point out that he was the only one to go after bin Laden before 9/11. Bush could have (and should have) when people in his own administration warned him of the threat. Failed leadership, again.

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

So it's a lying copulator over a lying cocaine addict and reckless drunk for president. But remind me... is Clinton running for president?

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Wrong, mass graves aplenty (see links). And, of course, Bush did find dangerous high residue explosives and let nearly 400 tons of it walk away in the arms of insurgents. When asked about it, took him 5 days to reply. He finally proposed that "America might not a been there yet.." He was wrong. We "secured" the area - and walked away. Failed planning and strategy again. His failed leadership is making our military look bad.

Mass graves: http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/bcr2/bcr2_20020614_1_eng.txt

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Ummm... no deficits, budget surplus, largest economic expansion in history... good. Largest unemployment rate, expanding deficit into record territory, stating "job loss is a myth"... bad. Are you kidding me with this one... you really should take this one off the list, it makes you look ridiculous.

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Both bad. Reminder though. Attempted assassination of bin Laden before 9/11... good. Invading a country and not even getting close to bin Laden... very bad.

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton says Saddam is close to "capability" for nukes and is wrong. Does not illegally invade sovereign nation. Bush sends diplomat to Nigeria to "find a connection." Diplomat returns saying there is no evidence that Saddam was in Nigeria looking for nukes. "Someone" in administration leaks that diplomat's wife is a former CIA operative (a felony) and Bush goes on to include intelligence he knows is false in his state of the union address. Very bad, very illegal, and still under investigation.

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton looks at evidence which does not support Saddam as a threat, reinforces sanctions. Bush looks at evidence which does not support Saddam as a threat, ignores this... makes some **** up and invades Iraq... bad.

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Reminder... Clinton uses targeted strikes to get high yield target, Bush invades country, says "we're gonna smoke 'em out" and comes up with nothing. Then later says "I don't think about him (Osama) much..."... bad.

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Saddam also not convicted... we'll all just have to wait and see how long that takes... No one said putting Saddam on trial was bad, but was it worth it?

Ahh, it's so confusing! Every year an independent tax watchdog group
analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the
"Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes
to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th.

That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd,
which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Wrong. Look at your sources closer and do your homework. Please, take a moment to look at this link to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities regarding "Tax Freedom Day"

link: http://www.cbpp.org/taxday98.htm

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no
explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men.
Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas.

Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars.
(His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces.
Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right?
The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid
paying his own.




This point is a little flimsy, no? Being rich doesn't preclude you from being president. The problem in my mind is "Dubya" portraying himself as a folksy man of the people when his father couldn't even tell us how much a gallon of milk cost when he was president. Bush and Kerry are privileged and don't know much about "the people." The problem is Bush was born on third base, but he thinks he hit a triple.

Maybe Bush's oil interests are equal to Kerry's ketchup interests... How much ketchup is in Iraq?


Pass this on. Only 5 days until the election.

Heh. Wouldnt you be pleased Nobby? Think of all the neat things you would have sent your way.

I guess while I'm casing Hellbitch, I should keep an eye on Bubba to make sure he's safe...

One of those menage-et-trois he has will be just abit too much for his ticker and <ack!> he'll croak. One of the ladies sitting on his face will think the spasms he's having are just an orgasmic lurching, ignore it and continue to grind away on him. Later, when the old boy grows cold, they'll realise that his normal habit of falling asleep after attending to his own needs spoofed them into not recognising the blissful sleep of death.

I missed out on Christopher Reeves though. I coulda made some $ on Superman if he'd been a little more forthcoming about thos bedsores...

Totem