Your 'boyz' may want to peruse this before spouting the same tired out "Bush Lied" BS.
If you want to talk about being misled into war, talk about Clinton, and the disgraced and FIRED former SACEUR.
This has been a public service announcement.
In Kosovo, we fought on the side of the Islamic Jihad.
In Iraq, we fight against them.
Pick your party. Vote accordingly.
http://wesclarkwarcriminal.tripod.com/generalwesleyclarkwarcriminalsupporterofterrorismandhypocrite/id1.html
Vain, Pompous, Brown-noser
Meet the Real Gen. Clark
"The reaction from former army subordinates is very different.
"The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994.
While Clark's official Pentagon biography proclaims his triumph in "transitioning the Division into a rapidly deployable force" this officer describes the "1st Horse Division" as "easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this stuff."
Such strong reactions are common. A major in the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado when Clark was in command there in the early 1980s described him as a man who "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career".
While he regards his junior officers with watchful suspicion, he customarily accords the lower ranks little more than arrogant contempt. A veteran of Clark's tenure at Fort Hood recalls the general's "massive tantrum because the privates and sergeants and wives in the crowded (canteen) checkout lines didn't jump out of the way fast enough to let him through".""
You mean Kennedy/Johnson getting us into Viet Nam?
They're dead Jeff.
There is nothing left to 'do' to them.
So9
Lt Kerry claims that his war experience gives him a better view of being a wartime President which would have disqualified Franklin Roosevelt. How then does he act so naive when dealing with our enemies who have our destruction as their ultimate goal. Just as he was a willing dupe during the Vietnam war with the North Vietnamese, he is showing that same ignorance with the War on Terror. How much risk is he willing to take before he would act to protect the United States?? In Vietnam, he was only risking a million or so Gooks who were later killed by his buddy Ho Chi Minh, what about Americans???
The two heavily Democrat partisan Senate Committees found that The Bush Administration did not lie or mislead the American People when they assessed the information they had. The CIA was so positive there were WMDs that they said it was a slam dunk in finding them. The committees also found that there were definitely connections between Sadamn and Al Queda who both wanted the deaths of millions of Americans. Knowing this President Bush was faced with the decision to attack Afghanistan and later Iraq to reduce/eliminate this risk. This decision did not come easily, but if there was a chance of another attack on America he would have been derelict to not attack.
If there was a 1 in 1000 chance that Sadamn had weapons he could give to terrorists to make a biological or nuclear attack on a major city, could he accept that risk. As a leader he could not accept any chance of killing a million Americans. That doesnt even count the number of rabbits, deer and spotted owl that could be collateral casualties. Most likely he had weapons and we knew he could get a nuclear within time if he didnt already, then it was just a matter of delivery. A leader should always err on the side of caution which is exactly what President George W Bush did and will do.
Yaaaaawn Cut & Ran Kerry says that he will only respond after we are attacked and only after he has everybody in the world agreeing. He would not attack if there was a 1 in 1000 or 1 in 2, he would need a 100% surety before he would consider going to war. There is no such thing as 100% in the War on Terror, which is why he is blind to the Truth and only pandering to the anti-war crowd. Another words after we have a million dead in NYC we will go to the UN (assuming it is still standing), hat in hand and ask France, Syria and Madagascar if it would be ok to attack a condom factory in the Sudan like the good ol 90's?? Meanwhile the terrorist network will go along without any worry of ever being attacked. If Kerry were President Saddamn would still be trying to buy Uranium from Africa and Nuclear warheads from Korea while the camps run freely in Trashcanistand & Iraq.
In a world that is full of the most dangerous weapons in the history of mankind we need a leader who will do what he says without checking the weather vane first. In Vietnam it was only Vietnamese who were losing their lives because of Kerrys anti-war beliefs, this time we are in the cross-hair. He has showed his acceptance of risking & losing millions of lives for the advancement of Communism in Nam, can we afford that risk our lives. We have a leader who has proved he will not accept those odds, can we afford to play the hand any other way? Vote Bush!
Pray for W and Our Amazing Troops
Good question, Democrats.
During the bombing campaign I read that a former resident of Yugoslavia had stated that Clinton had accomplished in a few weeks what Hitler, Stalin and Tito hadn't been able to accomplish in over 60 years. ... Get the Serbs to hate America.
BTTT
I have long thought that Kosovo should be brought up into the public attention loud and clear. Where were the anti war phonies then???