Here is from the white house site:

"The issue facing our nation and the world is the extension of the war
on terror to places like Iraq. Prior to September the 11th, there was
apparently no connection between a place like Iraq and terror. Oh,
sure, he had run some terrorist networks out of his country, and that
was of concern to us. But it was very difficult to link a terrorist
network and Saddam Hussein to the American soil. As a matter of fact,
it was very difficult to link any attack on the American soil, because
prior to September the 11th, we were confident that two oceans could
protect us from harm.

The world changed on September the 11th. Obviously, it changed for
thousands of people's lives for whom we still mourn. But it changed
for America, and it's very important that the American people
understand the change. We are now a battle ground. We are vulnerable.
Therefore, we cannot ignore gathering threats across the ocean. It
used to be that we could pick or choose whether or not we would become
involved. If we saw a threat, it may be a threat to a friend, in which
case we would be involved, but never did we realize the threat could
be directed at the American people..."

The entire speech at this link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030209-1.html


I actually wasn't looking for this. I was looking to see whether he
had said the danger is imminent. In fact he said we would not wait
until it was imminent.

And yes, my Avalon does suck.

On 5 Feb 2004 17:44:55 -0800, beguna@mindspring.com (Arthur Begun)
wrote:


Unlike the democrats that let people attack America (USS Cole etc etc)
without doing their job.

Because of the left (ie Demoncrats) being cowards and afraid to
confront terrorists we ended up with 9/11.

We now have a President that is not a weak kneed traitor and the War
on Terror is being taken to the terrorists everywhere in the world.

One of my boys is transporting Seals into areas you may never hear
about. I would venture to say that there are a number of terrorists
assuming jungle temperature...

....Art....remember 9/11???

We are at WAR, Art...



Scott in Florida

Arthur Begun wrote:

Ark, your just like a dose of the clap, keep coming back. Havent you
sold the Avalon yet? Hey, I see Chrysler has taken Dahlmer into the
hole. Did anyone else see that?


Anyway, Yes, Iraq and terror are directly connected. Abu Nidal was
actually killed by Saddam in Iraq, for those of you in Rio Linda or in
Arts house, he was a terrorist. So to say there was no connection, its a
lie.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:58:36 +0000, Scott in Florida wrote:

It is this flag waving rhetoric that caused me to chastise the fund raiser
from the RNC. To try to pin a national tragedy on a particular party is
ludicrous and to suggest opposition to Bush's stances is traitorous,
even if they might highlight "reasonable concerns" is equally ludicrous.

Perhaps the fact that we defend nations and prop up monarchies who offer
their people no hope of sharing in the wealth that we cart off might be a
root cause of 9/11.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:25:48 GMT, Another Tom <sg7188@snet.net> wrote:

Oh?

LOL

You mean the coward prez we had for 8 years made the terrorists quake
in their boots?

Give Me A Break!!!

Can you remember Clintoon kissing Yasser Arafat's ass? One of the
biggest terrorists around?

The demoncratic party is not totally responsible, but their policies
are!

Now we have an idiot running for Prez that thinks he can solve
terrorism by taking them to court!!!

ROFLMAO (if it wasn't so damned serious you demoncrats would be
funny).


Scott in Florida

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:32:26 +0000, Scott in Florida wrote:

Yes



Scott, what is THE CAUSE, Clinton not dealing with them is not a cause.

Scott this is not a valid rebuttal that supports your assertions.

I can also remember the 200+ Marines being killed in Beruit under the
Reagan administration; Republicans did a good job at handling that; that
problem is certainly solved. USS Stark et al. I wonder why Hussein
wasn't finished off after Gulf War I? Apparently another lapse of
Republican judgement.

Their policies are "totally responsible?" Hyperbole at best and it tends
to lessen the effectiveness of any legitimate points you may have.

Scott, in your infinite partisanship you assumed I am a democrat; i am a
moderate Republican I don't use 1) Big Business, 2) The Christian Right 3)
Neo-Conservatives to do my thinking.

Scott in Florida wrote:
Liberal saps fail to accept that fact and the terrorists play on that sappy
mentality.

Another Tom wrote:
NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING can justify what happened on 9/11, so spare me
that fucking liberal guilt trip, asshole.

Another Tom wrote:

LOL, phony. So how did you take it when we had the buddist monks, and
Charlie Tree, Riyadis and Chicoms giving to the democrat party? Kinda
creepy when a communist country contributes to your party.

I'm sure you were all over them chastizing the DNC, right?

Another Tom wrote:
I remeber the Iranians holding a bunch of Americans hostage (back in the
Jimmy Carter era) for 400+ days, as soon as Reagan was innagurated,
miraculously, all were released. Strange, huh?



Wow , me either, except I'm not a moderate (fence setter, wishy washy,
changes with wind, unsure of a position) I'm a conservative republican.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:13:44 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:

Yes, I guess "negotiating with terrorists" is the way Reagan handled it.
Can we say "arms for hostages"; That certainly is a deterrant.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:09:38 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:

No, because it was a discussion about my possibly donating to Bush's
re-election campaign. If all the RNC and you have to offer is "the DNC is
just as bad", I'm sorry that is not compelling. This has nothing to do
with the DNC; it has all to do with the "My way or the highway" attitudes
of the neo-conservatives in the administration.

When the RNC fundraiser called me, I told her I thought that Rumsfeld, Ashcroft were
"scary individuals" and I didn't think I would be supporting the party
this presidential election. I was immediately accused of "giving up on America".
So much for the Republican party of "inclusion" I told her that "this
type of talk" is what I find offensive about the entire party; I was
giving up on the party, not America.

It is odd that there is a growing number of Republican lawmakers concerned
about the record deficits; best they not raise the concerns else they will
be branded "liberals" and any reasonable discussion reduced to name
calling.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 04:47:48 +0000, Charks wrote:

"Cause" does not mean "justification."

Another Tom wrote:

I think you are thinking of an entire different deal Tom, you must be
pretty young?

All Reagan did to get the hostages release was to be inagurated. They
were petrified of what would happen and they knew "it would happen real
soon" if htey werent released. Same thing just happened to Lybia.

Another Tom wrote:

Tom, you've never supported anything but the liberal demonrat party.
Quit lying, well, try, your a demonrat.

Janet reno was scary, hur burning children in Waco, sendiing Elian back
to a communist dictator...

In article <bqXUb.14324$F23.13856@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net>,
MDT Tech(R) <ssauer40@repairmen.com> wrote:

Er, prove it? It's one thing to make-believe little bravado fairy tales
in your head like a little child, it's another thing to expose yourself
as doing so in public (if you were of average intelligence you'd be
embarrassed), and another still to vote or otherwise support public
policy based on fairy tales in your childish little
black-and-white-world mind. You probably didn't even make them up
yourself; they were probably fed to you by someone else. Why are right
wingers so enamoured with power and domination, that they need to
concoct these little dramas? Do they feel that weak? Are they
compensating for something they're lacking in?

oh well,
Steve

In article <_ZEUb.10736$213.10110@edtnps89>,
"Charks" <Charks@Charkstank.com> wrote:

So that explains why terrorists attacked with George W. Bush in office.
Guess they knew he'd invade Iraq if they did! Boy did they get theirs!
They messed with the wrong party!! whoo hoo!!! Nice to know you
right-wing brainiacs think Bush is a "liberal." I'd take a sappy
mentality over a teenaged dumbass mentality any day. Do your parents
know you're online??

Normal people miss Clinton's (for all his faults) spreading American
values and prosperity around the globe--winning people's hearts and
minds, instead of creating new generations of terrorists the way George
W. Bush is.

Steve

Beautifully put Steve.

I also agree that the Bush supporters here sound like scared little
children.

Patriot


"Steve" <steve@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:steve-62E642.10482607022004@news.east.cox.net...

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 01:44:39 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:


Apparently Lawrence Walsh wasted a lot of time in generating this report.
It is a public record.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 01:46:53 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:

Please read "If all the RNC and you have to offer is "the DNC is
just as bad", I'm sorry that is not compelling." again.

The fact you frame all your speech towards opposing viewpoints with a contemptuous
tone (e.g. Quit lying..." and demorant 'sic'") I image the entire democratic
process must be a tremendous annoyance to you. This is why I am glad my
vote counts as much as yours. (I'm sure that's annoying to you as well)


The fact that you frame every