posted on November 4, 2003 07:57:36 AM new
Again Linda, if you want to claim Zell Miller you can have him. Point out another Nam vet he can trash and you both can be happy.
posted on November 4, 2003 07:58:09 AM new
Ill try and make it a little clearer for you 12.
I would stick my nose in to attempt to prevent the injustice.
The screwing children analogue is directed toward the chicken-hawks.
You on the other hand have already unqualifiedly told us that a neighbour that involves themselves in to object is nothing more than nosy.
War Drum Bushit, Comes On Thick
DeSquirrel
posted on February 6, 2003 02:17:45 PM
“CNN just popped this up:
President Bush says Saddam authorized commanders to use chemical weapons and the U.S. "will not wait" for Iraq to unleash such attacks. “
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=167495&id=167622
Linda still in character, accepting all chickenhawk statements as gospel.
Linda_K
posted on February 7, 2003 10:26:49 AM (from link above)
Ari Fleischer did answer Helen about the division of oil:
Q Since you speak for the President, we have no access to him, can you categorically deny that the United States will take over the oil fields when we win this war? Which is apparently obvious and you're on your way and I don't think you doubt your victory. Oil -- is it about oil?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as I've told you many times, if this had anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to lift the sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives by protecting the American people --
Q We will not take over the oil fields, are you saying that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The oil fields belong to the people of Iraq, the government of Iraq, all of Iraq. All the resources –
Q And we don't want any part of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- of Iraq need to be administered by the Iraqi government. And any action that is taken in Iraq is going to be taken with an eye toward the future of Iraq. And that involves the protecting of infrastructure, providing humanitarian aid. And that needs to be done by the Iraqi people.
Q There are reports that we've divided up the oil already, divvied it up with the Russians and French and so forth. Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: What's the source of these reports that you cite?
Q They're all over the place.
MR. FLEISCHER: Can you be more specific?
Q That we have just -- we will take the oil fields and then we will parcel out the oil.
MR. FLEISCHER: But you cited some reports. I'm just curious about -- if you can be more specific about the source of these reports that you're citing here today.
Q -- have you been reading the newspapers?
MR. FLEISCHER: Can you be more specific? Anywhere in particular?
Q Senator Lugar said it.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no truth to that, that we would divide up the oil fields. As I --
Q Your own people have said something -- but I'm sorry I can't pinpoint it.
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the infrastructure of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. And that is going to be respected.
Q Why should you decide what is their infrastructure or their government?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, if the regime changes there will be a new government. And the government will represent the people of Iraq.
ferncrestmotel
posted on February 7, 2003 01:37:00 PM
“Secretary Powell laid out new intel very clearly, but for those who still don't get it or question the veracity of his presentation, just answer me two questions (coherently, please):
1) Where are the huge unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and delivery systems not addressed in Iraq's 12,200 page farce submitted to the UN Security Council? (Hans Blix has publicly stated that such materials cannot be destroyed without a paper trail, even in Iraq)
2) Why do you think he's hiding them?
When Saddam is ousted, the Iraqi people are freed from tyranny to embrace democracy, and the evidence of Saddam's hidden weapons of mass destruction are exposed (they already have been, if you're smart enough to see it), I can't wait to see what all the whiny skeptics in the world have to say. “
Yes…What do the whiny chickenhawk cheerleaders say now…same BS..’I believe in Dumbya’.
posted on November 4, 2003 08:04:47 AM newhow many felony convictions did they have. There were all kinds of people around him that were convicted. Himself? He didn't earn the name 'slick willy' for no reason.
But just like the Mafia...they functioned quite well for many, many years with their 'top' men not being convicted. Doesn't mean what they were doing/involved in wasn't illegal.
posted on November 4, 2003 08:17:31 AM newBut just like the Mafia...they functioned quite well for many, many years with their 'top' men not being convicted. Doesn't mean what they were doing/involved in wasn't illegal.
Do you really believe that statement? ROTFLMAO And how many mafia dons are in prison?
Zell's derisive knickname for years has been [i]Zigzag[i/]
posted on November 4, 2003 08:30:44 AM new
Well then it appears to me both of you seem to think Clinton was a fool because he supported him the way he did.
edited to add clarification to my above statement.
When Bill Clinton captured the Democratic nomination in 1992, he tapped his friend Zell Miller to give a keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.
You have the gall to continuing asking bear and myself why WE would support [when I don't, I just agree with his recent statements] and here Bill Clinton calls him a FRIEND and gives him the HONOR of speaking before the DNC. And you laugh at us? LOL
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 4, 2003 08:37 AM ]
posted on November 4, 2003 08:48:17 AM new
Since I can no longer work within my party this afternoon I intend to re-register to vote as a republican and am founding a local chapter of Concerned Republicans against Bush
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 4, 2003 08:49:18 AM new
it is funny how when one of their "own" back the President, he is no longer welcome...
But I guess that is politics Demo style...
This will be an interesting year ahead... President Bush got his 87 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, economy is on he up swing...
hmmmm how can the Dems try to downplay all that... I know like the broken records they are turning out to be... regurgiate "yesterday's" news... Claim they were lied to, no proof of that but still claim it... don't believe that Saddam was a menace, because they would as soon hand the keys over than fight for anything.
Fortunately they are no position to do anything other than "b*tch" so it makes it quite comical actually.
Then of course we have our non-americans who don't know the difference from sh*t and shinola piping in, now that is humorous...
posted on November 4, 2003 09:17:41 AM new
Agreed twelvepole......
See how easily they avoid mention of all those democrats who also believed Saddam had weapons? Just ignore the facts and go right on back into the 'blame' mode. So much easier than coming up with solutions themselves. And even with the economy....**any** improvement stands to benefit us all....not just republicans. But they see it as a threat....almost as if they don't want our economy to improve....least not until they have a chance to get a dem in the WH.
They even ignored the statement I posted from clinton, where he made his statement on our economy. Maybe they don't believe him either.
------------
Well helen, I think Sen. Byrd should have retired when he turned 71......we can all dream.
posted on November 4, 2003 09:21:33 AM new
Linda, don't wish to correct you but the new name of the angry left is not Doom & Gloom. They have been renamed after a recent Hollywood movie, Dumb & Dumber
Austi, if you want to stick your nose in someones business try your own home problems.
Australian invades Solomons Islands
HONIARA : The Australian-led intervention force in the Solomon Islands has celebrated the success of its first 100 days in operation to restore law and order to the troubled Pacific nation and rebuild its shattered economy.
Although publicly funded, Australian universities make the Freemasons or the CIA look like amateurs when it comes to secrecy, paranoia and concealment.
Australian pols aren't as puritanical as their American counterparts - or as perverted as the British. Our media is less prurient. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate our great political sex scandals - alleged or otherwise.
September 29 2003 - Australian workers are losing faith in employers as a result of recent reports on corporate failure and misconduct.
An international survey by global recruitment agency Kelly Services indicates widespread belief that businesses do not have their employees’ best interests at heart. This disillusion is particularly evident among older workers.
More than 5,000 people were surveyed in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, with around 2,300 of those in Australia. 52% of Australian respondents said that revelations about recent business practices had negatively impacted on their trust in employers. This compared with 35% in Malaysia, 34% in Singapore and just 29% in New Zealand.
Just four months after national elections in Papua New Guinea resulted in the installation of Bill Skate as head of an unstable coalition, a corruption scandal has left the government in disarray.
A video tape secretly made by one of his former senior advisers, Australian businessman Mujo Sefa, was screened on ABC TV in late November, showing Skate discussing pay-offs with one of his ministers. In another video, he called himself the "godfather" of Port Moresby's raskol gangs, saying, "I can be very ruthless. I don't need money, but if I tell my gang members to kill, they kill."
Schwarznegger and the hypocrisy of the Australian press
Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 13 October 2003
The scorn that the Australian media poured on Schwarznegger and the speed at which they repeated every accusation and vicious piece of gossip that would blacken his name has had the salutary effect of revealing just how hypocritical, prejudiced, dishonest and morally bankrupt many of our journalists are.
But the political bigotry and moral bankruptcy of the Australian media is an old story that is not going to end any time soon.
I only have to think back to early 1997 when the Clinton scandals were in full swing. We had the pompous Geoffrey Barker from The Australian Financial Review enthusiastically jumping to Clinton's defence, wielding his journalistic club with all the ferocity he could muster.
