Senators slam administration on Iraq
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Senators from both parties accused the Bush administration Wednesday of incompetence in its efforts to rebuild Iraq and said the United States could lose the war unless it improves security and gets more money into the Iraqi economy.
Among those harshly criticizing the White House at a hearing were the two top Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last year for Iraqi reconstruction, only $1.1 billion has been spent because of violence and other problems. Hagel called that record "beyond pitiful and embarrassing; it is now in the zone of dangerous."
Even Lugar, who is not usually given to strong rhetoric, said the failure to inject funds into the Iraqi economy quickly was "exasperating for anybody looking at this from any vantage point."
The hearing was called to discuss a new administration plan to reallocate $3.5 billion in reconstruction funds, primarily to Iraqi police and military training.
Hagel told two State Department officials they had "inherited a mess" from a year of Pentagon-supervised government in Iraq and expressed doubt that the United States was winning the war. "It's not a pretty picture," he said.
The two witnesses — Ronald Schlicher, deputy assistant secretary of State for the Iraq bureau, and Joseph Bowab, deputy assistant secretary for foreign assistance programs and budget — conceded under questioning that the administration has fallen short of benchmarks touted over the past year:
• None of the 32,000 Iraqi police put on the beat since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has gone through a full training program, Bowab acknowledged.
• Of $13 billion pledged by other countries to aid Iraq's reconstruction, only $1.2 billion has been spent.
• The administration has created only 110,000 jobs for Iraqis, leaving a pool of unemployed young men, many of whom have become willing recruits for insurgents. The new reallocation is intended to provide 800,000 jobs, but many are short term, some for as little as one month.
Schlicher said the amount of money spent since the transition to an interim Iraqi government in June had doubled. But he added, "We have to do much better, and we will."
posted on September 17, 2004 01:19:23 PM new
We went to war over a small R&D weapons program:
The report is expected to be similar to findings reported by Duelfer’s predecessor, David Kay, who presented an interim report to Congress in October. Kay left the post in January, saying, “We were almost all wrong” about Saddam’s weapons programs.
Duelfer’s report, however, is expected to fall between the position of the Bush administration before the war — portraying Saddam as a grave threat — and the declarative statements Kay made after he resigned.
It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay’s October findings. Then, Kay said the Iraq Survey Group had only uncovered limited evidence of secret chemical and biological weapons programs, but he found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges.
He also said there was almost no sign that a significant nuclear weapons project was under way.
posted on September 17, 2004 01:34:03 PM new
How sad. It amazes me how fast one person can ruin things in 3+ years. The saddest thing is it was all for nothing and at the expense of it's citizens.
posted on September 17, 2004 05:53:39 PM new
We wouldn't be in this position in Iraq at all today if Daddy Bush would have finished the job he started in 1991. He had a true coalition built and the backing of the UN.The Arabs were all for what we were doing at that time. That would have been the time to do something if something needed doing. All he did was stir up the hornets nest for Clinton to deal with while he was in office.
The blame could conceivably be squarly placed of the Bush family shoulders.They have had a whole lot more to do with the mess there than any democrat ever has.
posted on September 17, 2004 06:12:17 PM new
I agree bear. clinton allows our interests to be attacked 4-5 times and does just about nothing. Binladen said America was a 'paper tiger'....meaning all talk no might.
------------------
We wouldn't be in this position in Iraq at all today if Daddy Bush would have finished the job he started in 1991. He had a true coalition built and the backing of the UN.
That is not a fully correct statement. The UN agreement did NOT allow a regime change nor a removal of saddam from power. Bush1 stated that if we [America] had tried that WE would have been in violation of the UN decree.
All he did was stir up the hornets nest for Clinton to deal with while he was in office. more like for clinton to ignore....wouldn't even take binladen when he was offered TWICE. yea....clinton SURE dealt with it okay...so the AQ got braver...we hadn't done anything when they attacked our interests before....why would he think it would be different now?
But President Bush showed him....you hit us we come after you and your group of terrorists. Now most of the world works together to go after the terrorists. With Putin being the latest.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those are only two reasons why we need to:
posted on September 17, 2004 06:19:13 PM new
Ya, Linda, and it's working SO well!!!!!
Baghdad Violence Leaves at Least 52 Dead
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A suicide car bomber slammed into a line of police cars sealing off a Baghdad neighborhood Friday as American troops rounded up dozens of suspected militants, capping a day of violence across Iraq that left at least 52 dead.
posted on September 17, 2004 06:31:51 PM new
If you remember the 9/11 commission said Bush tried the same techniques Clinton did during his first few months in office. His staff questioned his motives as to why they were trying the same stuff that Clinton tried when it failed to work for Clinton.
Oh that sounds like an effective leader to me.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 17, 2004 06:40:13 PM new
That is not a fully correct statement. The UN agreement did NOT allow a regime change nor a removal of saddam from power. Bush1 stated that if we [America] had tried that WE would have been in violation of the UN decree.
It's OK for Bush 2 to ignore the UN but not Bush 1. The UN wanted to let inspector's do there job, but Bush Jr. did what he wanted.
If you remember Bush Sr. decided against a regime change because it would a long drawn out war and a very costly one at that. I wonder if he thought his son would give it a shot anyway.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 17, 2004 07:00:11 PM newBut President Bush showed him....you hit us we come after you and your group of terrorists.
Well that certainly sounds bold, aggressive and assertive.
The only problem is, Hussein & Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Bush & Co. have intimated so often that they did that a lot of neocons have been brainwashed into thinking that this blather is fact.
Now, Bush started off right--he went after bin Laden & the Taliban of Afghanistan. Then, apparently suffering from adult ADD, he wandered off-task and focused on Iraq. And unfortunately, he & his crew bulldozed the country with fear tactics in order to get the go ahead to strike Iraq instead.
edited to place an "n" where it would do the most good.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
[ edited by bunnicula on Sep 17, 2004 07:02 PM ]
posted on September 17, 2004 07:09:02 PM new
I just disagree, bunni.
I've read too many articles where different connections are made. No dots connected..but enough to convince me.
And as I've said before...even to those who believe there were no connections....saddam still presented a threat that couldn't be left alone after 9-11. saddam was still funding terrorist and as his past actions proved....no one believed he wouldn't do something again...it was just a matter of time.
posted on September 17, 2004 07:13:01 PM new
A. Hussein, IIRC, hadn't done anything outside his own borders for 8-10 years.
B. We will be in a state of perpetual war if we started attacking other countries on the basis of "what they might do" sometime in the future. That's sheer insanity. Not only that, it is not the way America ever has or ever should conduct itself.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on September 17, 2004 07:53:10 PM new
A. Hussein, IIRC, hadn't done anything outside his own borders for 8-10 years.
First of all....he supported terrorism without 'doing' anything out side his own borders. Second he could have been...maybe was selling/buying weapons.
And why do you think that is? Because we, the US, and the UK kept constant air servellance and were being fired on all the time. PLUS for 12 long years he was under the UNs eye. Didn't keep him from misusing the Food for Oil money either.
B. We will be in a state of perpetual war if we started attacking other countries on the basis of "what they might do" sometime in the future.
Yes, bunni, 9-11 and all the terrorist activity in our world is going to have to be dealt with. Ignoring them and letting them grow stronger isn't going to stop just because some choose to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it's going away.
That's sheer insanity.
Well...our Congress recognizes it's necessary. Even kerry said there might be times when we'd have to go it alone. Of course he's changed his positions so many times...no telling what he really would do. But he did say that there might be times. And we really didn't 'go it alone'. That's totally discounting Australia, the UK and many smaller countries who have also done what they can.
Not only that, it is not the way America ever has or ever should conduct itself.
We're in a new type of war now bunni. No more army against army wars....now army against cave dwellers...murders...teams of muslims - Arabs who want to win this war. We have to fight it...go after them....or we're going to lose.
Clink on the US National Fact Sheet for more details.
Then the right asks how Kerry will fund the programs he is suggesting....It seems Bush can not even fund the ones he signed into law.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
[ edited by logansdad on Sep 18, 2004 05:05 AM ]
posted on September 17, 2004 09:06:49 PM new
Saddam did not support terrorist activities against the US. He did support them against Israel.Terrorism is bad no matter who it is aimed at but you must surely understand that Saddam was no direct threat to the USA.Our efforts would have been better spent elsewhere.Like here at home.
Linda you are convinced by the flimsy evidence because you want to be. Not because there is enough evidence.That's your choice.If you like being snowed by the government go for it.
Clinton probably did what he thought was right at the time. He apparently did not think it was right to get us into a quagmire war.Good for him.I'm not in his head and never have been so I can't possibly know why he did or did not do the things he did.
Now that bush has gone forward with his ill advised war the whole world knows our military is way over stretched, they know our troops are not given all they need to fight the war. They know we cannot protect ourselves from any greater danger to us from outside. We are practicaly sitting ducks and the whole world knows it. That make you feel safe??
We can't even gear up to produce the planes and war machines we would need in a war because all our manufacturing has been shipped overseas.The machines I used to work around and on are now in Mexico. A lot of our local steel mills machines went to China as well as the machines necessary to make products. We are a service industry now. I seriously doubt China would be willing to send us back our equipment so we could gear up for war.This is not like WW2 where we could stop making things here that were not needed so we could make the things that were.
We ship our steel to other countries so they can use our old industries to create the things WE want so they can ship them back to us.
We are screwed if something big happens in the world.
I don't feel safer.
posted on September 17, 2004 09:39:03 PM new
I do believe logansdad has posted in the wrong thread.
------------------
but you must surely understand that Saddam was no direct threat to the USA.
Bush1 and our Congress didn't think so. Both bill and hillary clinton didn't think so. They and many in our Congress thought saddam presented a huge threat to our security and that of the world.
Our efforts would have been better spent elsewhere.Like here at home.
Yea, like Russia was doing until the terrorists decided to use their school children as hostages. NOW they're taking on the terrorists too.
Linda you are convinced by the flimsy evidence because you want to be. Not because there is enough evidence.That's your choice.If you like being snowed by the government go for it.
I don't think our past three administrations were 'snowing me'. They all believed the same thing. I have trouble understanding your lack of desire to go after terrorists. So we're equal. They're not going away because you 'wish' them away.
Clinton probably did what he thought was right at the time.
No, imo, clinton and most dems cannot be trusted to do whatever it takes to defend this country. He allowed those attacks on us to go unpunished. That only encouraged our enemies.
He apparently did not think it was right to get us into a quagmire war.
No...he wouldn't....when you don't have the guts to defend our nation....you won't. It might have made him un-popular...can't have that. More important to be well liked than to defend this country.
Now that bush has gone forward with his ill advised war the whole world knows our military is way over stretched, they know our troops are not given all they need to fight the war.
Ill advised? LOL - Our Congress, including kerry voted and gave him the power to do this. You really need to read some of kerry's statements prior to the war. He was even saying Bush was taking too long to take action. He's sure got you fooled.
Our troops are overstretched because clinton cut our military by 45-50% in his eight years. Then besides all those cuts...he deployed MORE of our military all over the world - he said for peace keeping duties. Doesn't matter they were still sent abroad....thus less available troops.
kerry voted after our WTC was first bombed to REDUCE funding for our intelligent agencies....dems supported doing that. kerry voted to go to war....said we needed to go to war with Iraq....then votes against funding the troops. And now YOU blame the lack of what they need on Bush? He's almost doubled the money spent on our military. While your kerry and the dems have continually voted to decrease money that's needed for our military and their equipment.
They know we cannot protect ourselves from any greater danger to us from outside.
We can try. So far they've done a GREAT job...haven't been attacked since 9-11....that's because things were put in place to prevent it. Suspected terrorists have been arrested. A couple of bomb plots have been diverted.
We are practicaly sitting ducks and the whole world knows it.
And your solution is????? You think we should just quit fighting the war and wait for another attack? What's your solution to this? Dems are super at criticizing....rarely offer any solutions. That's what kerry's ran his whole campaign....criticism of how it's being done....but absolutely NO recommendations to how things could be improved. It's like we're in a civil war ourselves. Republicans working to protect our nation and it's citizens and dems sounding like they're just hoping we're attacked again so make President Bush look bad. Rather than us all pulling together and admitting the terrorists aren't paying any attention to our political differences. They're going to come for me as well as you.
That make you feel safe?? I feel much safer having a President like Bush in office....yes. One I KNOW will defend this nation - his TOP priority. Very much safer that I would with kerry as CIC. Especially kerry that can't even make up his mind what he's going to do. And using his anti-war actions when his 16 week stint was over in VN. Siding with our enemies. Yea, I much prefer a President who's on OUR side. Kerry's also the biggest flip-flopper I've ever seen in politics.
We can't even gear up to produce the planes and war machines we would need in a war because all our manufacturing has been shipped overseas.
But the dems #*!@ that this President has said there are many reasons why it's better we're fighting on there...rather than here.
The machines I used to work around and on are now in Mexico. A lot of our local steel mills machines went to China as well as the machines necessary to make products. We are a service industry now. I seriously doubt China would be willing to send us back our equipment so we could gear up for war.
President Bush didn't start free trade. Nor did he start the outsourcing of business. Check out our history in that area. AND kerry's not going to change anything in regards to what you've just stated you're concerned about. It's not going to change under a kerry administration. It's the global economy now. Just like all the Internationalists like kerry wanted.
This is not like WW2 where we could stop making things here that were not needed so we could make the things that were. We ship our steel to other countries so they can use our old industries to create the things WE want so they can ship them back to us. We are screwed if something big happens in the world. I don't feel safer.
And you think kerry's going to change all that??? What has he said that convinces you he'll do anything to improve the above concerns you have? What exactly will kerry do that will make you feel safer?
posted on September 17, 2004 09:40:40 PM new Ha Ha! Blame everything on Clinton, when you're too stupid to see the truth.
And the only truth you believe id from kerry?
Lotza luck looser. You and kerry will make a matched pair.
"So John Kerry now is the first self-confessed war criminal in U.S. history to be nominated for president. Normally this would be considered an electoral plus only in the more cynical banana republics. But the Democrats seemed to think they could run an antiwar anti-hero as a war hero and nobody would mind." --Mark Steyn
posted on September 17, 2004 09:58:23 PM new
Hi Linda.
President bush #1 was the one that laid the groundwork and had the NAFTA agreement all ready to sign when Clinton won the election. I wish Clinton had not signed it.I do hold that against him and always will. BUT bush was the one that negotiated it .He would have signed it had it been ready in time.
As for the rest of what you say. No point in arguing.You will believe as you want and I will believe as I want. I think we are creating terorists and making our country less safe you think we are fighting terrorists and making it safer.
I think we are fighting some poor Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9-11 at all. You know, the Iraqis we are supposed to be liberating??
Personaly I think we are not fighting terrorists at all right now. Only adding to the problem.
As I said in the beginning..before we even went into Iraq...we needed to finish up in Afghanistan..where the terrorists really were,before liberating a country .
I have no problem going after terrorists..none at all. I think it might be a good thing~ if we would only do it.
posted on September 17, 2004 10:16:36 PM new
Hi Robin - You don't know how very nice it is to be able to disagree with someone on the issues...without making the arguments personal.
And as far as fighting the terrorists we are. Both in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure you're aware that AQ called upon their supporters to get to Iraq asap and help the saddam supporters. They're there now...have been since we took over the country.
But you didn't answer my questions on what ways you see kerry making/doing any of the things you mentioned - happen differently.
posted on September 17, 2004 10:24:38 PM new
[i]So John Kerry now is the first self-confessed war criminal in U.S. history to be nominated for president. Normally this would be considered an electoral plus only in the more cynical banana republics. But the Democrats seemed to think they could run an antiwar anti-hero as a war hero and nobody would mind." --Mark Steyn
A super quote, bear. And I'd bet there have been hundreds of times when they wish they hadn't even brought up the subject of VN and kerry being a so called war hero. Even clinton has told him to drop the subject. But kerry's got a mind of his own....nobody's going to tell him how to run his campaign....except the hundreds of advisors that are confusing him on which position he should take and stay with.
posted on September 17, 2004 10:32:11 PM new
Linda, thanks, I've have many more saved up waiting for the proper occasion.
"According to the Bush campaign, John Kerry's record of vacillation and inconsistency in the Senate would make him a disastrously indecisive POTUS -- an IMPOTUS, as it were." --Niall Ferguson
posted on September 17, 2004 11:14:42 PM new
Truth is Linda if Mickey Mouse were running for president against bush on platform of free cotton candy for everyone I think I would vote for him over bush at this point in time.I do not like bush but even more I do not like the people he has as his closest advisors and cabinet members. I do not like any of his appointees. I don't like his policies. There is nothing I like about him at all.So even Mickey would look good to me as I think mickey would do less harm to our country than bush is capable of doing and has already done.
JMHO of course.
I don't give a rats ass what is said about Kerry and the war in Iraq. Because everything I have heard from the right has been taken out of context and twisted .But to me anyone is better than bush. Kerry has at least the probablitiy of doing something I agree with. bush does nothing I agree with. Good enough for me.Like bush is good enough for you.
I don't understand it..I don't understand anyone who does..but I absolutely would fight to the death for your right to hold your opinions and vote as you wish if it came to that.
What I wonder is if conservatives would fight to the death for a liberals right to the same things.
The fact that I think probably not,in many cases at least, disturbs me.
edited...errors.... gads!!!
[ edited by rawbunzel on Sep 17, 2004 11:19 PM ]
posted on September 17, 2004 11:33:55 PM new
As for the sending jobs and all our natural resources and manufacturing overseas..well I do not blame only bush for that. I blame all of our goverment for that. Congress and everyone is at fault. They all should have stopped the flow out of our country.
Our country is being run by industry.corporate america.Not Americans. They control the governemnt by controling the lobbyists and controling the money that the commmon man does not have that influences the way things are decided in Washington DC.. We are small potatoes and worthless to politicians. If they do not get their faces out of the feed trough and remember that they are all our employees..especially the president.. sent there to do what is best for Americans..all of us Americans..not a few...we are doomed. Truly I do believe that.
We are a country that thrived on building things. Now we are a country that does something less than thriving on service jobs. We need to bring our machines, our steel, our lumber back to America for Americans to use.We need to export more than we import again. We need to get away from being a debtor nation.We need to get away from being a disposable nation.
A president alone cannot do that. He/she can bring in people that can help twords goals ..if a president is passionate about an issue things do happen.
A passionate,gung ho for Americans politician is hard to find. I really do not see that in anyone now.
The republicans have had total control over the government for the last four years and I do not see any movement at all to rectify the situation of lost jobs.My hope isthat if Bush does get in again, and I pray to god not, that at least the congress will become majority democrat.This doesn't feel like America to me having one party in charge of everything.Not at all.I wouldn't like it if it were all run by democrats either.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Sep 17, 2004 11:35 PM ]
posted on September 18, 2004 03:17:30 AM new
bunnicula
“The only problem is, Hussein & Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 “
Linda_K
“I've read too many articles where different connections are made. No dots connected..but enough to convince me.”
“he supported terrorism without 'doing' anything out side his own borders. Second he could have been...maybe was selling/buying weapons.”
Linda, Do you put your head in the sand to keep you blind of certain facts, or do you just pretend it doesn’t happen (read as: lie/false witness).
Is it OK for America to support terrorism if they are called ‘freedom fighters’; is it OK for America to be “maybe …… selling/buying weapons.”
Linda_K
“We're in a new type of war now bunni. No more army against army wars....now army against cave dwellers...murders...teams of muslims - Arabs who want to win this war. We have to fight it...go after them....or we're going to lose. “
Loose what Linda, your pride/ego, first it was the reds and now it’s the Muslims, who you going to hate next.
And what of a people that do not have the capacity to maintain what you would consider a ‘regular’ army; have they no moral right to fight a battle?
You don’t truly believe that only Muslims (note capital letter) kill innocent people in their battles ‘for effect’ or to ‘make a point’.
What of Dresden, or Hiroshima?
Linda_K
“Republicans working to protect our nation and it's citizens.”
So when, who ever it was, said something to the effect of “the only difference between the republicans and the democrats is the speed with which their knees hit the ground when a lobbyist’s money comes in the door”
Do you again stick your head in the sand resulting in the trouble you are having in seeing how the clear and distinct dots/lines connect, or do you just lie again.
If any nations leaders were truly only interested in ‘protecting’ it’s citizens then it wouldn’t permit some of them to go around the world spreading contempt for the rest of their nation’s people.
What can the victims, ie. other nation, do. Send a letter appealing for consideration?
Dear Mr. Kissinger, Please take immediate action to remove from my home, your citizens, who are here as mercenaries/security contractors.
Dear Mr. Greenspan or whom it may concern, Please take immediate action to remove from my home, your citizens, who are here as industrialists, exploiting child labour, or other workers under poor or unsafe work environments. Otherwise please, at least take action to remove all of their products from sale in your country, for I fear that our leader is a cruel and ruthless dictator who can not be trusted to control these industrialists as he is getting kick backs under the guise of political lobby funds, and I feel another Bhopal coming on
Dear Mr. Bush, Please take immediate action to remove from my home, your citizens, who are here to arrange the sale of biological weapons and helicopters, and I fear they are destined to be used against my people.
Response (if at all):
Dear Concerned victim, Thank you for taking the time to write to me as I truly-uly value your opinion. After careful consideration and having consulted with my advisers and lobbyist, it is my belief that any action on my part to hinder any free and open trading is likely to result in evil consequences and possibly socialism or communism for your nation. Trust me; you will be better off. God Bless US and if there’s any left over, you too.
There is no doubt that such appeals have been made to leaders of nations, failing to respond appropriately, ie, humanely, can force the hand of desperate people.
With power comes responsibility.
posted on September 18, 2004 03:35:33 AM new
What really stupid people don't understand is that if we attack any and every country we feel like because we think they MIGHT have weapons, that they MIGHT use against us and they MIGHT have MAYBE intentions of attacking us ....
THEN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD CAN DO THE SAME THING.
...that's called World War III.
And , every other country in the world would have the right to attack the USA!
See, blubber brains, we have weapons of mass destruction and WE MIGHT use them, we MAYBE thinking about it, we MIGHT attack. So that gives any other country the right to attack.
Your way of thinking, that the U.S. rules the world, is one of the reasons America IS the target of terrorism.
posted on September 18, 2004 05:08:10 AM new
rawbunzel: I think we are creating terorists and making our country less safe you think we are fighting terrorists and making it safer.
I think we are fighting some poor Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9-11 at all. You know, the Iraqis we are supposed to be liberating??
Personaly I think we are not fighting terrorists at all right now. Only adding to the problem.
As I said in the beginning..before we even went into Iraq...we needed to finish up in Afghanistan..where the terrorists really were,before liberating a country .
Excellent point. If Osama is the biggest cause of terrorism why is Bush doing more to hunt him down?
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 18, 2004 05:12:25 AM new
ahhh the liar crowfart chimed in... can't even keep her own word and has the gall to question others.... how amusing.
posted on September 18, 2004 05:19:08 AM new
rawbunzel, so you are comparing kerry to mickey mouse and still would vote for him over President Bush?
That is one of the most illogical things I have read in a long time...
Kerry would be worse for this country than President Bush ever thought about being, we don't need someone that kowtows to the UN everytime we need to do something, matter of fact we don't need the UN at all and one thing I am disappointed in is that President Bush will not take us out of the UN during his next 4 years.
We have a good strong President in office now, the last thing this country needs is a change to a weak one... one that will not support America against all and any aggressors... or threats.
more like for clinton to ignore....wouldn't even take binladen when he was offered TWICE. yea....clinton SURE dealt with it okay...so the AQ got braver...we hadn't done anything when they attacked our interests before....why would he think it would be different now?
The UN wanted to let inspector's do there job, but Bush Jr. did what he wanted.