A question to all Republicans..bush supporters..

[WantaghDem]

it's not sight and sound they're driven by....it's imaginary images and supposed words

(as in, Bush claiming that "god" chose him and that "god" speaks to him and tells him what to do)


________
Wild_Lianza (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Wild_Lianza/)

[Nattydread]

Recent polls showed that 70% of Americans believed there is/was a link between 9/11 and Saddam.

If Rumsfled and now Bush admits to date there is no link between 9/11 and Saddam...what made ya'll think there was a link? I would love to know..why did you believe there was a link?

story.news.yahoo.com/news...4&ncid=716

Also do you still think there is a link?

Can you please explain to me..to us why you thought there was a link?

Will you admit now that you were just over zealous and clouded by all the ridiculous flag waving antics?

Do you still believe the Jessica Lynch debacle?

Are you still waiting for bush to find WMD?

Will you admit that you are emotional individuals driven by sight and sound and not facts?
________
LIVERATEDsexTIUTOR69 (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/LIVERATEDsexTIUTOR69/)

[Halcyeon]

Quote:Recent polls showed that 70% of Americans believed there is/was a link between 9/11 and Saddam.

It is all so simple. The reason Bush is still in control and that this poll has that result is because Bush's whole strategy is to imply that Americans who do not support him, his war and his accusations are not real patriots, aren't real Americans. Re-elect him or betray America.

He won't come out and say it like that, he's not THAT stupid (well he is, but his entourage isn't), but that is very obviously the whole strategy to stay in control. Control by fear. Very effective unfortunately.

History always exposes scum like him, but usually when the damage is already done.
________
Hotels In Mexico City (http://mexicocityhotel.info)

[Yonivore]

Well, what people believe (based on a preponderance of the evidence) and what the President has proof of, may be two entirely different things.

1) Terrorist training camps in Iraq.

2) Meetings between Iraqi Intelligence officials and al Qaeda Operatives.

3) Praise of al Qaeda and monetary to "Palestinian" terrorists.

Those things alone, could cause reasonable people (70% in this case) to believe that Saddam Hussn could have had something to do with September 11.

And, that belief would not necessarily contradict an administration statement to the effect that no evidence of a connection has been found.

Hell, 99.9% of the people believe O.J. Simpson killed Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown-Simpson. Still, he was found not guilty.

Wow, maybe there's a parallel between the 30% who believe Saddam Hussn had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the people who believe O.J. was innocent. The first thing that comes to mind is that they probably share stupidity. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
BUKASHKIK (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/bukashkik/)

[WantaghDem]

Do you understand that there isn't just ONE terrorist organization in the world? I don't think you do.

"1) Terrorist training camps in Iraq."

Where were they, exactly, again? What was there location? Because Rumsfeld said he knew EXACTLY where there were weapons of mass destruction, too....and nther have been found. And if camps ARE found, can you tell me WHICH organizations they belonged to? HMMMM?

"2) Meetings between Iraqi Intelligence officials and al Qaeda Operatives."

This has been debunked. Didn't happen. Sorry.

"3) Praise of al Qaeda and monetary to "Palestinian" terrorists."

Can you give me chapter and verse of this so-called "praise?

And the "monetary" - I think you mean monetary rewards - were offered to PALESTINIAN suicide bombers, not Al Qaeda.

Your philosophy as conservatives is bad enough....try at l to get your facts straight!




________
Cum (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/17/cumshot/videos/1)

[Yonivore]

Yeah, pick on my grammarical errors. That's high brow.

Anyway, I'm still unsure how you are unable to digest that 70% of the people can believe Saddam Hussn was involved in the September 11 attacks while no concrete evidence has surfaced.

A greater number of people believe that Jimmy Hoffa was murdered.

A greater number of people believe Elvis is dead.

A greater number of people believe in the existence of God.

Why? It's called reason. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
PRILOSEC LAWSUIT INFORMATION (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/prilosec/)

[Billybob]

What "reason" would that be, that's not backed up by ANY facts? Are you lumping the ENTIRE middle in one basket? That's not only stupid, but a VERY detrimental mindset.

But, in this case your "reason" is dead wrong. Not only that, but the Bush administration has for a long time NEVER contested that belief that apparently 70% of America believes. Until now, that is, because they have to cover thr asses, "oh no, we never said THAT."


________
TOYOTA SV-3 SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_SV-3)

[WantaghDem]

Let me get this straight....The Bush Administration has made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that not only is thr ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of a connection between Saddam and 9/11, but that THEY DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER.

OK, so, the conservatives' heroes say unequivocally that there is NO SUCH CONNECTION.

Seventy percent of the American public, listening to Bush & Co prattle on about avenging 9/11 by going into Iraq, believes that there IS A CONNECTION.

EVEN THOUGH all of the respected experts say there isn't - and even the BUSH ADMINISTRATION (certainly not included in "respected experts") says there isn't.

And Yonsabore says that this not only proves that seventy percent of Americans are RIGHT - but that they used REASON to come to this conclusion????

I'm sorry, but even the most rabid defenders of Clinton's extramarital didn't come anywhere this close to bng so damn foolish and illogical and downright stupid.

THEY LIED.

THEY GOT CAUGHT.

THEY GONNA LOSE.


________
Celine (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Celine/)

[Yonivore]

Quote:Billybob:

"What 'reason' would that be, that's not backed up by ANY facts? Are you lumping the ENTIRE middle in one basket? That's not only stupid, but a VERY detrimental mindset."
You don't understand the difference between belief and knowledge, do you? 70% of Americans (That would include a good part of you Demoncrats), "believe" that Saddam Hussn was involved in September 11. The Bush Administration has no "knowledge" of any such connection.

The absense of evidence does not mean the belief isn't accurate any more than, as in your assertion, the belief of something doesn't make it true, without proof.

Just like there are a whole buttload of Demoncrats that "believe" Bill Clinton was the greatest president this nation has ever had, without providing any proof.
Quote:Billybob:

"But, in this case your 'reason' is dead wrong."
First of all, the context in which I used the word "reason" had to do with a person, through a cognitive process, arriving at a belief. It did not, as you've obviously misintepreted, have anything to do with having a "reason" or known fact that supported the belief.

In other words, 70% of the people "reasonably" arrived at the belief that Saddam Hussn was involved in the September 11 attacks based on what they already knew about him from previous experience. It was a cognitive process of reasoning...not coming up with a reason.
Quote:Billybob:

"Not only that, but the Bush administration has for a long time NEVER contested that belief that apparently 70% of America believes. Until now, that is, because they have to cover thr asses, "oh no, we never said THAT."
Maybe the Administration holds the same belief as 70% of Americans...that bng that Saddam Hussn WAS involved in the September 11 attacks. Disclosing that there is no evidence to support that belief doesn't make it any less possible to believe it's still true.

We're back to the suppositions of my earlier post. Most people believe Jimma Hoffa was murdered...a good deal of them believe they know who murdered him. But, they have no proof and they've been unable to uncover any proof. It doesn't make thr belief any less reasonable given the circumstances surrounding Mr. Hoffa's disappearance.

Again, when exactly did the Bush Administration lie to the American People, Congress, or the International Community? I'm still waiting for the quote...

________
GoddessXXX cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/GoddessXXX)

[Yonivore]

Hey nstn! Read my response to Billybob and get a clue.
________
VAPORIZER WIKI (http://vaporizerwiki.com)

[Halcyeon]

So 70% believe, without evidence and even without indications or possible leads which could provide evidence, that Saddam had a part in 9/11. Although this belief, like all beliefs, IS false, let's assume it's true.

There still is no evidence of it, yet the US are already acting on it. On a belief.


________
FIX PS3 (http://fixps3.info/)

[Yonivore]

Quote:nstn the II:

"There still is no evidence of it, yet the US are already acting on it. On a belief."
Find me the Administration statement that says we attacked Iraq because the Hussn regime was involved in September 11. Find me the Administration statement that thr involvement with al Qaeda was a factor in the decision to go to war.

The U.S. acted on several proven points the President and Secretary Powell outlined in two different speeches to the United Nations General Assembly. In nther of those speeches will you find the President or Secretary Powell say Iraq's complicity with al Qaeda or thr involvement in September 11 was a factor in determining the need for pre-emptive action.

You demoncrats sure like to make moutains out of molehills. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
WEB SHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Purity]

Quote:In other words, 70% of the people "reasonably" arrived at the belief that Saddam Hussn was involved in the September 11 attacks based on what they already knew about him from previous experience. It was a cognitive process of reasoning...not coming up with a reason.

I understand what you mean. There is no proof. So they reasoned that Saddam was involved because they concluded this from everyday, general facts and indications. It's not that we don't understand this, we would just like to know what these general facts, these indications, this "previous experience" is from which they draw these conclusions. Because I don't know any of these clues that apparently make it very obvious that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

I hope you can come up with better stuff than:

a) he was evil, tortured his people, ate babes, decapitated harmless puppies and has killed 10 trillion Iraqis.

- this has nothing to do with terrorism, this is dictatorship which is horrible, despicable, disgusting, but has nothing to do whatsoever with terrorism.

b) we found some camp that maybe possibly perhaps in certain circumstances if you look from the right angle and if you ignore the impossibilities and abnormalities, could have been used to train terrorists.

- these are usually regular army training grounds which the administration "wills" to be terrorist training grounds. Oh yeah and we have some illustre former Iraqi failure who will say anything to get back at his former leaders out of vengeance, who claims (probably in a thick southern accent) that he recognises it as Al Qaeda. Dozens of others, no make that hundreds of others, who have seen such camps, who are specialised in this matter, don't see it, but this guy does, so that proves everything.

c) we have found some document which proves that Bin Ladens brothers hairdressers cousins nghbours butler has once played bowling with Saddams nephews teachers sisters dentists mistress.

- good god! This totally denounces all those documents, general knowledge in the Middle and statements from the 2 guys themselves which suggest that they can't stand each other and that both of them would prefer to see the other one dead.

And I agree with Halcyeon: even if it all was true (you realise this is purely hypothetical), there still is no proof. You can believe in it, but the US have already accused, judged, sentenced and executed (=attacked) him without evidence. Based solely on believing and really wanting something to be true. And that is WRONG and UNJUST and very UNDEMOCRATIC. Which is a very strange thing to do for a country which claims to be the most just and democtratic country in the world.
________
Vaporizer (http://vaporizers.tv/)

[Yonivore]

Well, let's start with these reasons...

1) Iraq invaded a nghboring country in the early 90's, plundering it's wealth and killing innocent Kuwaitis before bng driven out by coalition forces.

This speaks to his willingness to attack unprovoked.

2) Saddam Hussn's agents (or maybe he did) signed an unconditional surrender that stated he would do and not do certain things from that point forward. He immediately broke that agreement.

This speaks to his trustworthiness. (Each and every one of his breaches justified a resumption of hostilities by coalition forces according to the U.N. resolutions he was violating.)

3) Saddam Hussn ordered the genocide of many Shi'ite Muslims in Southern Iraq after his defeat at the hands of coalition forces.

This speaks to his hnous depravity and indifference to humankind.

4) Saddam Hussn used chemical agents in the 1980's against Iraqi Kurds and Iranian soldiers. Chemical agents and programs that have never been accounted for, or whose disposition has never been satisfactorily explained by Iraq - - another term of surrender and another violation of U.N. resolutions.

This speaks to his indifference and his defiance of the international community.

5) Saddam Hussn orchestrated an attempt on the life of a sitting U.S. President.

And act of war.

6) Saddam Hussn failed to, in compliance with U.N. resolutions, declare, verify, and destroy any existing stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction which the UNSCOM and Clinton administration knew were in existence as late as 1998, before UNSCOM inspectors were forced to leave the country.

Another act of stupid and inexplicable defiance.

7) Saddam Hussn praised the September 11 terrorists.

An indication that, while he and bin Laden weren't on each other's Ramadan Card lists, they at l shared a common objective that apparently was more important than thr dislike of one another.

Saddam Hussn's regime provided financial rewards to "Palestinian" terrorists.

An indication he was sympathetic to terrorist causes.

9) More evidence has been uncovered that he provided direct aid to al Qaeda terrorists. From today's Wall Stree Journal, "Best of the Web:"

Quote:"'U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussn's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993,' USA Today reports:"

"Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy 'separating the gems from the junk.' The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin."

"As for the attacks of Sept. 11, Bush said yesterday that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussn was involved." Apparently he agrees with us and the plurality of Americans who think Iraqi involvement is only 'somewhat likely.'"

I will stipulate this is yet to be verified but we're talking about what would make a "reasonable" person come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussn could have been involved in September 11.

These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I suppose we could all go back and read the transcripts of President Bush's and Secretary Powell's speeches where they definitively outlined the case against Iraq and upon which President Bush based his belief that war with Iraq was warranted.

Now, someone show me where the Administration lied. Please!
?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Redheaded Live (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/redhead-girls/)

[Yonivore]

Here, I think Mona Charen says it better:

Saddam, and 9/11

Quote:Mona Charen at Townhall.com

"September 19, 2003

"National Public Radio and the major television networks can scarcely contain thr excitement. In what they obviously regard as a huge concession, President Bush noted the other day that "No, we?ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussn was involved with September the eleventh." Along with most of the Democratic candidates for president, many in the press have been arguing for months that the Bush administration misled the American people by implying a link that did not exist. Put that together with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, they say, and you?ve got a real indictment."

"According to the Democrats? bill of particulars, the Bush administration -- knowing full well that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 -- nonetheless encouraged Americans to believe he was in order to fulfill some Dr. Strangelovsh neocon battle plan for Iraq. The administration further lied when it offered the existence of weapons of mass destruction as a rationale for war. If what the Democrats say is true, we are dealing with one of the most dishonest and corrupt administrations in history."

"But there are a few problems with thr analysis. In the first place, no one in the administration ever claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The president pinned blame for that attack firmly on Al Qaeda. But the president and his administration also clearly stated that the war on terror was not limited to Al Qaeda, that it was a global war that would be fought on many fronts. The Axis of Evil included (in addition to Iraq) North Korea and Iran, nther of whom bears direct responsibility for 9/11 ther. And the administration has dispatched troops to the Philippines as well as Afghanistan and Iraq."

"Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now, how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they?ve heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda. Or perhaps they were thinking of the fact that he permitted Baghdad to become a haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who lived out a comfortable retirement on his generosity. Or perhaps they were considering that Saddam Hussn paid the family of each suicide bomber who killed innocent Israelis the handsome sum of $25,000. Or maybe they had heard about the 707 Saddam maintained at Salman Pak for terrorists to practice hijackings on?"

"Saddam the Baathist (Baathism is a kind of socialism) had in his later years seen how the wind was blowing in the Arab world and begun to adorn his terror state with certain Islamic trappings. Cozy relations with Islamic terrorists suited his purposes. They had the same enemies -- Israel and the United States. But, like other Arab leaders, Saddam was aware of the Islamist threat. While the Islamists were at war with the West, they were also casting covetous glances at the secular states in the Arab world. Saddam followed the Sun Tzu logic to keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

"The failure to find WMDs by this point is certainly puzzling. But the Democrats and the press -- most egregiously the BBC -- have adopted an interpretation that is simply childish. In Britain and the United States, liberals are charging that the governments of Blair and Bush purposely lied. In Britain at l, Blair?s chief accuser at the BBC, Andrew Gilligan, has himself been revealed to be a liar. But do the U.S. accusers really believe that Bush made it all up? If that were true, why did all of the intelligence services in the world as well as the U.N. Security Council conclude that Iraq did have those weapons? If it were true, why didn?t Hussn invite the U.N. inspectors into Iraq and prove that he had no weapons? Why throw the inspectors out altogether in 1998? Why risk and lose his kingdom for weapons he never had? It doesn?t make sense."

"But even if (and it?s a big if) the weapons are never found, are we to conclude that the Bush administration took the nation into an aggressive war for oil or glory or some other goal? The Saddam regime was one of the most ghastly and horrific on the planet. On those grounds alone, the world should be thanking us for bng willing to risk the lives of our soldiers to free the country. The regime was also a friend to every enemy of peace in the world. If Saddam had remained in power, gained nuclear weapons, and lived to menace the entire region and the world, President Bush would be condemned by history for failing to act before it was too late. For showing fortitude and good sense, he is condemned only by the small-minded."

You Demoncrats start with perfectly "reasonable" arguments over why we should or shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq but, when those arguments are proven vaccuous and when public opinion demonstrates (in a vast majority that would have to include some demoncratic voters) there is a general belief war with Iraq was justified, you resort to the "liar, liar, pants on fire!" approach.

Is there no depth to which you are willing to stoop? ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Live Sex Webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[azellyn]

when you act that way you had better have it together.

And...it's becoming more and more obvious that you don't.

You expect support for the war to be justified based on "evidence" from the '80's and '90's for which Saddam was already attacked where tens of thousands died and where Saddam was relieved of most if not all of his arsenal?

Have you no sense/shame, sense of shame for trotting out these worthless cowchips?


________
HINDUISM FORUMS (http://www.religionboard.org/hinduism/)

[Yonivore]

Quote:"...most if not all of his arsenal?"
Which is it? Most or all...because, in the world of chemical and biological weapons, it don't take much.

When did Saddam definitively declare he was completely void of WMDs and then go on to document these declarations to the UNSCOM? He didn't.

Yep, big difference between "most" and "all." And, if you don't know which it is...I'm erring on the side of caution and assuming it's "most." ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[azellyn]

OK let me get this straight so we don't have to talk about it again....you want to hang the invasion of Iraq in the new millenium on issues that have already been fought over in the '80's and '90's? And, you want to do this even though Bush led the world to believe that there was an imminent threat?

If that's the case then do it but don't expect that you support for such an idiotic position. In fact, if I were you, I'd keep this hallucinogenic carp to myself because it makes absolutely not one iota of sense.

>D
________
HotXCandy (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/HotXCandy/)

[Yonivore]

There's been two elements to our argument that you keep wanting to confuse.

Did the Bush Administration lie (you say he did, I say he didn't) and why did the Bush Administration go to war with Iraq, (you say it was based on lies about WMD's and I say it was based on many elements, outlined in the President's address to the U.N. General Assembly, in addition to a belief he possessed WMD's).

Yet, you keep ranting about how I'm pointing to his use of them in the 80's and 90's as the Administration's sole justification for war.

Quote:"....you want to hang the invasion of Iraq in the new millenium on issues that have already been fought over in the '80's and '90's?"

Maybe you should limit yourself to arguing one point at a time, you seem very limited in your ability to separate different trains of thought. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
HOW TO ROLL A JOINT (http://howtorollajoint.net/)