posted on March 4, 2003 12:46:54 PM new
I'm left-handed and I find this to be excellent news. So what's your point?
Since the war on the real terrorists seems to be going so well why again are we going to bomb Bagdad?? Doesn't look like any Al Qaeda are hiding there.
posted on March 4, 2003 12:48:28 PM newThe apprehension of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is just one more success in a string of successes by you and others in the law enforcement and intelligence community aimed at disrupting and eliminating al-Qaida from the face of this earth,´´ Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said.
Yes...it most certainly is. So good to read that progress is being made against the A-Q. Yeah for our side.
posted on March 4, 2003 12:52:51 PM new
We are going to bomb Baghdad to keep Saddam the Dog from giving WOMDs to any terrorist group and especially those that might use them against us or our allies.
Hmmmm where are the peaceniks that said we had stopped looking for AQ?
posted on March 4, 2003 01:01:58 PM new
It IS great to see one who opposes this administration say they are also happy to see the 'war on terrorism' is making some progress. This is a first [that I've seen here].
As you say, twelvepole, it's the silence of those who said we weren't that has been noticed by some of us here.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 4, 2003 01:04 PM ]
posted on March 4, 2003 01:13:48 PM new
I doubt if any who oppose the administration oppose the war on terror as long as it stays a war on terror and not a war on Americans rights. As long as it stays a war on terror and not a war against the world.We all want to see the Al Qaeda bast***s caught and dealt with.
Still, the war on terror has little to nothing to do with Bagdad. Pres. Bush just said last week, in a ploy to gain some leftist backing , that the war is to liberate the people of Iraq. Originaly it was because of the ties to Al Qaeda, when that didn't pan out it was because of the UN resolutions that Saddam supposedly didn't adhere to...although it has been shown that the data they are using to prove that he has WOMD are at least ten years old...so why are we really going to bomb Iraq? Really, there is no clarity there.
Wait...It could be because Saddam wanted to kill his daddy.Of course there hasn't been a president that hasn't pissed someone off and had a target on his back but we know this was different! LOL!!!I suppose Saddams son wants to kill this Bush since he wants to kill HIS daddy. Never ends.
100,000 or so people surely deserve to die for these insults and intents.
posted on March 4, 2003 01:18:48 PM new
I can't understand why, Linda, you're surprised that people who disagree with some of the actions of this adminstration would also be happy that an alleged terrorist has been caught.
If you understand that people can disagree with specific actions, for specific reasons (mistaken though that reasoning might be), and don't unreasoningly hate everything Republican or American no matter what it is, this wouldn't be a surprise to you. I know we've heard a lot of "you're either for us or against us." That's wrong.
posted on March 4, 2003 02:00:26 PM new
Well Donny I'll try to say it in a different way.
That I have seen, rawbunzel, is the first person I've read here....[who as I said]....post a statement that it made her happy too. We've a VERY vocal group here and I have noticed the lack of support for the administrations work on the 'war on terrorism. While, at the same time, I have read MANY who have said the administration is making no headway. So, yes, it did make me happy to read raw's statement.
posted on March 4, 2003 02:06:26 PM newWait...It could be because Saddam wanted to kill his daddy.
I fully agree with DeSquirrel.....ANY attempt on ANY PRESIDENT of the US should be considered an act of war, imo.
Rawbunzel - Since no one else from the 'left leaning' side has ever answered my question, I'll ask it of you. How is what President Bush is saying any different from the exact same words of Clinton? I have posted Clinton's exact words on the fact that Saddam needs to be removed and disarmed. I'd really like to understand how you see a difference now.
posted on March 4, 2003 02:22:47 PM new
Linda, isn't it a given that everyone's happy that a terrorist was caught? As far as I can see, there's not much in that occurence to discuss. Shall I add here that I'm for health, against sickness, pro-prosperity, anti-poverty, like good and dislike bad?
The title of this thread 'more bad news for leftists' is stupid. Why continuously manufacture divisions where there are none? Does anyone really believe that "leftists" would prefer that terrorists not be caught? Who are these "leftists" anyway?
posted on March 4, 2003 02:37:33 PM new
donny - "isn't it a given?" No...I don't believe so. To do that would be making an assumption.
To me, it's that those here who so hate Bush, cannot bring themselves to spend one second posting they're happy to see this administration is making headway in ANY area. If it's not posted, it can't be assumed. And you're getting carried away with "shall I say....". Sure if that's how you feel when the appropriate thread comes up. And is what most here do when they agree or disagree with a thread topic. That's my point.
posted on March 4, 2003 02:38:20 PM new
Bad news for leftists...as if anyone opposed to the coming war is first a "leftist", and second, somehow unhappy that a terrorist has been caught. Once again, the name calling and with-us-or-against-us attitude rears it's bigoted, ugly head. We all saw the news, and I doubt anyone is unhappy about it. The way in which this thread was started makes it nothing more than a cheap troll looking for an argument by calling names. I see this daily on the playground...not interested in seeing it when I get home as well.
posted on March 4, 2003 02:39:44 PM new
While you're here, donny....would you mind answering the question I posed to rawbunzel? You know I always enjoy reading your side of the issues. Where do you see a difference between what Clinton said and Bush has said about Saddam needing to be removed and disarmed.
posted on March 4, 2003 03:05:35 PM new
I strongly believe that those on the left hate Bush so much that they hope that Bush fails at everything that he does, including the war on terror.
posted on March 4, 2003 03:07:09 PM new
"bad news for leftists"
Maybe the confusion lies in the fact that despite the President saying we are in this for the long term and that we will pursue these animals wherever and however they go, there are many posts from "non-conservatives" to the effect:
"OH, MY GOD, BUSH JUST SENT SPECIAL FORCES TO THE PHILIPINES!!!!!!!"
(extensive liberty given to change verbs, objectives, etc).
posted on March 4, 2003 03:11:54 PM new
But Linda, if I answer your question that would imply that I'm putting myself into someone else's category of "left-leaning," and whatever that means to them, and that might have nothing to do with what I actually believe. Why, if I'm labelled as "left-leaning," I'll have to assert that I'm actually for good, against bad, think health is good and sickness is bad.. because if I don't say so, it can be assumed that I feel oppositely.
What's the difference between Clinton saying that Saddam should be disarmed and removed and this Bush saying he should be disarmed and removed? Well, maybe it's the same difference as me saying... geeze, I really hate that Carrot Top guy, I wish he'd just fall off the face of the earth so I'd never have to see him on tv anymore, and someone else going up to Carrot Top and blowing his brains out.
Maybe it's that when Clinton said it, he didn't really intend to invade a nation that had committed no act of aggression to us, and overthrow a sovereign leader, and that when this Bush said it, he always intented to remove Saddam and install his own puppet government. That when he said that the goal was to disarm Saddam, that was a lie. The goal was to remove Saddam, whether he disarmed or not. When Saddam resisted destroying the al Samouds, Bush said that was non-compliance. As soon as he began to destroy them, Bush said that was deception. You can't have it both ways.
Clinton hadn't done any favor to the Iraqi people, that's for sure, but it wasn't because he left Saddam in power; it was because he continued to uphold the sanctions against Iraq that have been the cause of the deaths of 500,000 children.
If there's going to be any positive outcome from this, that's the only one I can see, that the sanctions will finally be lifted... but it's a hell of a way to get there.
posted on March 4, 2003 03:18:18 PM new
Sheesh, first I had to mourn the death of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed last September and now I have to rue his capture alive. It's doubly hard being a terrorist sympathizer.
posted on March 4, 2003 03:20:24 PM new
We'll install a puppet government in Iraq like we did in France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea, Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait.
posted on March 4, 2003 04:02:36 PM new
When Clinton made that remark in 1998, Iraq was stronger and refusing to cooperate with weapons inspections. Now, Saddam has agreed to inspections and nothing of significance has been found. In the meantime, because of Bush's dumb diplomacy, North Korea has become a real threat. Doesn't it appear hypocritical to claim a concern about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq while North Korea is waving them in our face? Clinton, on the other hand, was negotiating with both North and South Korea and keeping Iraq under control.
Another point - Clinton's goal was to maintain peace and not to take over oil fields and achieve global dominance.
I know that it's hard for you to rub your head and pat your stomach at the same time but believe it or not, I also am happy to hear that the Pakistani's were able to capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - if in fact it really happened. LOL!
posted on March 4, 2003 04:03:54 PM new
Donny - In 1998, during clinton's impreachment hearings, he gave almost the exact same speech that Bush has about why Saddam needs to be removed and his weapons destroyed. No difference.
To me, your carrot top comparisons aren't applicable here. But what we do see is the sanctions haven't worked. What we see is Saddam is still playing his games.
And from what I've read the sanctions have been a joke anyway. Anything Saddam has wanted to buy, he has. If his people are dying...it's his fault. He chooses to spend his money in other areas, not for his people.
And Russia, Germany and France siding against the US now...and the difference between when Clinton was in office? Now the three of them all have big 'deals' with Saddam. And if we invade, those deals will be worthless to them. That's what they're protecting. It's not they're morally against a war.
posted on March 4, 2003 04:12:47 PM new
"Donny - In 1998, during clinton's impreachment hearings, he gave almost the exact same speech that Bush has about why Saddam needs to be removed and his weapons destroyed. No difference."
Seems to me there's a difference between saying something and not intending to do it, and intending to do something and saying that you're not.
posted on March 4, 2003 04:27:28 PM new
Not to mention that the republican congress stymied most everything Clinton tried to do all the while keeping the country from functioning as best they could through their silly impeachment efforts.
posted on March 4, 2003 04:28:22 PM new
Helen -
Iraq was stronger and refusing to cooperate with weapons inspections. Now, Saddam has agreed to inspections and nothing of significance has been found.
You have no way of knowing if he was stronger then than now. You are no more privy to our intelligence information than I.
Saddam has had 12 years to disarm. While you obviously are of the opinion that he has none since they haven't been found, I believe the proof that we have been told proves differently.
You appear to forget Hans Blix has himself stated it's not their job to 'FIND' anything, but rather to view PROOF that already KNOWN weapons have been destroyed.
In the meantime, because of Bush's dumb diplomacy, North Korea has become a real threat. Clinton was 'bribing' NK with millions of our tax payer dollars so that this idiot would not be doing exactly what we now find out he did anyway. clinton's plan didn't work Helen. That's why we're in the position we now find ourselves.
Doesn't it appear hypocritical to claim a concern about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq while North Korea is waving them in our face?
No....NK has just recently been discovered to have been making NWs. Looks like if the little madman keeps up his nonsense we'll be forced to go to war with him too. I believe it was Bush's intent to get support from the countries in that part of the world....to work at convincing him to disarm. This just started...hasn't been going on for 12 years.
To me, Bush hit the nail on the head when he labeled these three countries the 'axis of evil'. As that's proved that to be true. Now, of course, for those of you who don't believe they are evil leaders, who care nothing about their own people.....nothing will ever convince you.
And if you've read the lastest news, Bush is sending 24 fighters to Guam...just in case NK decides to pull any crap....as we go into Iraq.
I'm glad we have a leader like Bush, who holds his ground and doesn't change his policies by the results of the latest poll. But rather who believes these leaders are evil and are threats to our country...and is willing to sacrifice public opinion to deal with it.
posted on March 4, 2003 04:40:43 PM newSeems to me there's a difference between saying something and not intending to do it, and intending to do something and saying that you're not.
Yes, maybe more lies....wouldn't be the first out of his mouth. Fact remains he did bomb Iraq and his words before doing so were exactly the same as this president's.
Bush has, from 9-11 stated his intent with the 'axis of evil'....and he has tried every other route to get Saddam to disarm. Those same routes haven't worked. Anyone who reads Saddam's history, knew he wasn't going to disarm and work with the inspectors. And we knew what that would lead to. Those of us who support 'doing' something about Saddam are glad it will finally be dealt with.
posted on March 4, 2003 04:49:48 PM new
The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which North Korea decided to renege in January 2002 went into effect in 1970, and Bill Clinton was president.
posted on March 4, 2003 05:13:37 PM new
>Yes, indeed, the attempted assasination of a US President alone should be justification enough for the present course of action.
I am only going to interject in this thread with this one correction. It has NEVER been determined WHO tried to have Bush, Sr. assassinated! Bush, Jr. SUSPECTS that it is Saddam, but there is absolutely no proof of it. I checked that out when Bush Baby brought it up in a speech a while back.
Sure if that's how you feel when the appropriate thread comes up. And is what most here do when they agree or disagree with a thread topic. That's my point.
