Fashion, Beauty, Entertainment, Cars, Celebrities > Cars & Autos > Toyota > OT - Did Bush ever say Saddam involved in 9/11?
OT - Did Bush ever say Saddam involved in 9/11?
Posted by Arthur Begun


will <will@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote in message news:<48an2051j8spfcskcnrgtf9k63n6sf9ga0@4ax.com>. ..


Halliburton sells a similar kit to the US government for $100k.

Posted by Arthur Begun


Scott in Florida <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message news:<cksm20to941477ent0cagjt0i66gv5hdrd@4ax.com>. ..

Actually many terrorists have moved to Iraq. I'm surprised that Bush
hasn't stated that that was his plan all along. Plunge Iraq into
anarchy so the terrorists move there and therefore they won't be
targeting the US. The man is a genius.

Posted by John F Kerry


Arthur Begun wrote:

Art, forget it, you can quit going to bat for me. Asfter todays scandal
broke, I'm prety much done!

Oh, we democrats use Oxydental anyway! Its bog oil, but supported by the
democrats, so its an "ok big oil"


Posted by Scott in Florida


On 12 Feb 2004 19:40:01 -0800, beguna@mindspring.com (Arthur Begun)
wrote:

You forgot the correct title of the company...

It is "Vice President Dick Cheney's former company Haliburton"...

Scott in Florida

Posted by Scott in Florida


On 12 Feb 2004 19:43:51 -0800, beguna@mindspring.com (Arthur Begun)
wrote:

Would you rather have them in your home town???


Scott in Florida

Posted by Scott in Florida


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:48:33 GMT, John F Kerry
<John_F_Kerry@Massachussettes_Liberal.com> wrote:

John 'F'ing Kerry!!

As I live and breath...

My new favorite Democrat!!!!!!!!

Go John Go...

Bet that wife of yours is gonna be happy with your blond bimbo!!!


Scott in Florida

Posted by Erik Aronesty


Scott in Florida <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message news:<7uep20h06321b6jbn2fthgtnpd7umitr2e@4ax.com>. ..
He supported the War, the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act,
school vouchers and more. He played ball with corporate lobbyists in
Washington for 19 years. In his neverending popularity contest, Kerry
proposed hundreds of phony bills. Only 4 of them were ever moved to
vote and none of them passed.

My nickname of him is "bizzarro-bush".

Now he comes out giving speeches and pretending none of that happened.
Or saying it wasn't his fault, or that "he didn't know".

May the first time he could have said that. But Kerry's been a key
player in all that's wrong with this administration... smoothing
things over for coporate influence in Washington.

Not only do I want to see him off the Democratic ticket, but I want
him out of politics altogether.

Posted by Jennie


No child left behind does not help kids....only add more paperwork...


"Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> wrote in message
news:3939595a.0402130832.ddfeb93@posting.google.co m...


Posted by Darkblood


Scott in Florida wrote:

There's nothing wrong with Communism. It just doesn't work when people get
greedy. And Vietnam Veterans Against the War is not a Communist group. It
is simply a group that fought in Vietnam and saw how this was a war that
was going nowhere and needed to end.

I have more trust in John Kerry than I ever will in George Bush's presidency
and the mountain of lies the Bush Administration dished out to the people.

Posted by Scott in Florida


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:42:26 GMT, Darkblood <none@none.none> wrote:


OK.. I've been silent this weekend...so here goes...

Name ONE lie from the Bush Administration...


Scott in Florida

Posted by Philip®


In news:m81Yb.15416$5W3.11571@nwrddc02.gnilink.net,
Darkblood <none@none.none> being of bellicose mind posted:
Because you are a Communist sympathizer, your viewpoint is expected.

--

- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM



Posted by SHARX.


Darkblood wrote:
What about all that hogwash in the Gulf of Tonkin? If memory recalls, there
was a DEMOCRAT in the White House then.




Posted by MDT Tech®


Darkblood wrote:


Lies?, he got his information from the same place Kerry did, as you can
see in below, Kerry felt the same way GWB did, only difference is Kerry
is now running fro president. Kerry has never taken a stand for
anything. He changes his vote or lies about the way he voted to save his
political career. He has doen this since day one.

--



"I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."
"We do not need to divide America over who served and how."
John Kerry, Feb 27, 1992


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."--Sen. John F. Kerry
(D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp
for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with
weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


Posted by Rich Lockyer


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:13:28 GMT, "SHARX." <SHARX@SHARXTANKnospam.com>
wrote:

For that matter, it took a Republican to end VietNam


--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/

Posted by Bob Hetzel


Nixon said he was ending the war. Then he ratcheted it up by expanding the
conflict to include Laos and Cambodia. Here's more info...

http://vietnam.vassar.edu/

and specifically, the brief version is at...
http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview.html

The 'fight the spread of communism' principles that started that war
were by no means owned by the Democrats. The seeds of the conflict
were planted by the Eisenhower administration (aka republicans).

Also, do a google search on "the pentagon papers" for more info on
government lies relating to that war.

In any case there are many things the same and many things different
between our wars with Viet Nam and Iraq.

In article <nvq23059lj054kmtrocri33rc2tvjleou7@4ax.com>,
Rich Lockyer <rlockyer@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote:

Posted by MDT Tech®


Bob Hetzel wrote:

Here is some more for you Bobbie:

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.



FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.



Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us.



Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives
were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.



Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never
attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing.



Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.



In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put
nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We
lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year.



Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at
home.


Worst president in history? Come on!

--



"I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."
"We do not need to divide America over who served and how."
John Kerry, Feb 27, 1992


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."--Sen. John F. Kerry
(D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp
for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with
weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


Posted by Joseph Oberlander


MDT Tech® wrote:


Yet we don't attack Saudi Arabia. What gives?



Posted by SHARX.


Joseph Oberlander wrote:
It's not practical right now. Be patient.




Posted by Scott in Florida


On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:34:01 GMT, "SHARX." <SHARX@SHARXTANKnospam.com>
wrote:

Saudi Arabia...


Scott in Florida

Posted by Bob Hetzel


In article <ggAYb.8483$WW3.7583@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
=?windows-1252?Q?MDT_Tech=AE?= <ssauer40@repaimen.com> wrote:
Thanks for the insight, but I didn't say he was the worst president.
I was merely adding info. Can you cite a source to that 300,000
figure? I'm not disputing it, but I've seen a wide variety of numbers
associated with how bad he was, so I'm wondering who's right.

Here you ignored my previous note about Veit Nam. Or are you disputing
it?

Viet Nam was a quagmire when the French were still involved.

Where's your source on that Sudan item? >
And we killed upwards of 3,000 civilians in Iraq. That we called it a
war makes it no less evil than Osama calling it a war against us and killing
nearly 3,000 here. Saying it was 'accidental' doesn't make it good.

As to Libya, dig a little deeper. That was in the works before Bush was
elected.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...ion/index.html

This article is from Feb 1, 2001 and tells of how they were trying to make
nice with the rest of the world.

Now about your assertion that the Taliban is crushed... they've been
regrouping and building strength again. What makes you so sure we're going
to do better in Afghanistan than the Russians did? The fact of the matter
is that impoverished people with little hope will always be easy to recruit
for religious fundamentalist causes. When we complete our withdrawal
the mass poverty will still be there, but now there's lots of depleated
uranium, and unexploded cluster bombs in addition to the land mines,
ensuring further problems for more generations.

Oh, so if only one big attack gets through that's a success?

Kinda reminds me of the signs outside factories that say things like
"90 continuous days since last serious injury. Good job!"



Similar Posts