Posted on 03/20/2006 11:18:14 PM PST by usarmymedic
No offense, and this may not be directed to you, but for all those who are crying foul of this current administration, I bring the following:
I still haven't heard one credible criticism of this current administration. Truthfully, of all the stuff that's out there, none of it measures up to valid, tangible truth. If you added it all up and sold it on Ebay, you wouldn't even be able to buy a cup of coffee off the profits.
I've heard all sorts of stuff about Halliburton. That's part of what they do. That's their jobs. They make money on defense. What else would they do? Ooh, Cheney used to be with Halliburton. That's a big conspiracy, right? Way to keep that secret. Somebody recently brought that up to me like it was this big to do. Yeah, that's President Bush being tricky. He would select a VP that used to be with Halliburton and then plan out a war in 8 months. Yeah, that worked well keeping that a secret. What a mastermind! This is the same argument that "anti-war" activists used against Johnson during Vietnam. Halliburton gained a whopping 2.4% profit margin in 2003. 1.4% in 2nd quarter of 2004. Would YOU invest in that? Michael Moore invested in Halliburton (even though he says he never invests in ANYTHING). But we don't hear that on the evening news. Moore has made twice as much off war as Halliburton. He's not complaining about those profits, is he? Is he giving proceeds or even a percentage to children of fallen soldiers? Probably not.
Sexist or Racist? GW Bush has more minorities in office than Clinton and Franken added together. Do a little digging and find out how many minorities Al F. has hired in the last few years. Everybody knows that Bill loved women, so no argument there. Oh, he had a black guy in office. But I think that guy was shot in the back of the head in an airline crash over a third-world country, or something like that. Clinton's attorney could probably verify the veracity of that, but he's not available right now. I think he died of depression in a park around DC somewhere or got run over by a train while sleeping on the tracks. Something weird like that, and totally believable too.
Election fiascoes? Even the NY Times ended up giving in to the numbers. And they are just about the most liberal of all newspapers. Don't know if anyone else is more left on the spectrum. Not one investigative report by any credible news source came up with anything for Gore (and people are still complaining). Not even Clinton won more than 50% of the popular vote. Either time. Bush did though. Twice. Oh, and so did Reagan.
Forewarning of 9/11? The actual Presidential Daily Briefing doesn't even mention airplanes, except that Bin Ladin wanted to use one as a threat to secure the release of an Arab prisoner. All mention about attacks on Federal buildings wouldn't have applied anyway, the Twin Towers aren't Federal. The backstory actually had more to do with an assassination attempt on President Bush in Genoa. Bush didn't worry about his own safety or any threats on Federal buildings. Why should he? The CIA surely wasn't concerned.
Military enlistments? Nothing there. Just see my last research on it. Nothing. Nada. Try harder, Al and Janeane. You're running out of audiences. By the way, did you know you're going broke? That credibility thing is a killer.
No WMD? You've seen the articles. www.reformedlibrary.com/wmd.htm They have been found all over Iraq. This info has also been directly reported to the UN. WMD have been found and it has been reported ad nauseum. I have even more stuff on file that hasn't been reported.
No one heard of Bin Laden before 9/11? Clinton did. OBL attacked a lot of our Marines in 1992. World Trade Center in 1993. He had a role in the ambush in Mogadishu. His masterminding the bombing of the Office of Program Manager of the Saudi Guard in Riyadh. The 1996 attack on the US Air Force in Saudi. Bin Laden declared war on the US five times from 96-98. Two American embassies were attacked within nine minutes of each other in 98. Bin Laden organized that. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden was mentioned over 18,000 times on US news channels from 1997 to 2001, according to research on Lexis-Nexis. Guess who was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and never did anything about it? It wasn't a Republican.
What else do they have to offer? A bunch of ranting by a bunch of out of work actors? No wonder they're mad. They can't get a good script and they are trying to create a blockbuster of a made for TV movie. Yeah, that's credibility in action. Nothing from Airhead America is true. Nothing. All this negative criticism is worth poo. I can't take it anymore. Doesn't it irritate you that all this rampant garbage is out there? Some B movie actors and out of work comedians pissed off about how conditions are. I feel bad for them that they can't sign a contract to play a fictional character, dissociated from reality in their Hollywood bungalows, and make millions off popcorn and diet coke, but really, that doesn't mean they are the most dependable sources of real life events in the world around us, does it?
The reason I write all this is I JUST got done reading an article about how Charlie Sheen believes that 9/11 is a big conspiracy put on by the Bush administration to get into war.
OH, MY GOODNESS!
Yeah, within 8 months and with former Clinton appointees, President Bush organized a massive military strike on two countries for oil. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Shut down oil production in order to increase it? Look at the economic dynamic. It just doesn't make any sense. The price of gas always goes up during a conflict in the Middle East. We've seen that before. The US never takes control of another countries exports. Never. And what, now we're supposed too? It's the same criticism as Desert Storm and we all know that we never took one ounce of oil then.
It's a rehash of all the same crap and it's never true. But folks keep trying the same old tired arguments and it doesn't wash with reality.
I think I figured out what is at the root of people like Sheen and his dad. As long as it's a Republican in office, they have to complain about something. They have to invent problems with a Michael-Mooreish fringe of truth to make all the nutjobs look like their telling the truth. Maybe there is something going on? Unless they have someone in office that is convicted of perjury, impeached and disbarred, they just aren't happy. Or perhaps they are just upset their guy got it in the shorts and they want some blood. Problem is that none of the arguments float. It's like wiping before you take a dump, it doesn't make any sense.
However, in response to all this, the NY Times respond to valid attacks on America with disdain. Not toward the terrorists, but toward the US. A group of Arab men, trained by Bin Laden, plan to attack the US in 2002. The FBI arrests them. The NY Times, however, create an uproar by using a staged photo of a little boy holding a toy gun aimed at a sign that said "Arabian Foods," demonstrating American racism. Yeah. Those poor terrorists. Let's get those little old ladies in the airport! They are the real problem. Those little old shoes on the bottom of those little old feet carry little old bombs. Let's not profile the 19 ARAB MEN trying to kill us.
From 9/11 to the end of 2002, the Bush administration stopped over 100 attempts of terrorist attacks on US soil. The Clinton administration stopped how many? Not Kobar Towers. Not the Cole. Not the Twin Towers. Arguably twice!
I could really go on for days and days or pages and pages about the above material. This is verifiable. It is documented. It is tangible. It is actionable.
My point is that I am opposed to people like Phil Donahue and his masking of his fealty to the US. He said that the real protesters were those who protested America. Those were the real patriots. What planet does he belong to? You're a patriot if you defy your country? This is a folding in half of Webster in order to make himself feel justified in his defense of being an idiot. Apparently, it's more patriotic to attack American than defend it. That makes a whole lot of sense.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Know who said that? A President in office. In 1998.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Know who? Gore. 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Care to guess? Kennedy. Sep 2002. He says "many years." Where did he get that? Many years? Surely more than one.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein." John Kerry. 2003.
I agree with those above. My evidence is:
16 Sep 2001. OBL [Osama bin Laden] and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq. ABC News! http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1
24 Sep 2002. UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 and earlier UNSCOM reports, we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for: -- up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent; -- up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, including approximately 300 tonnes which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare programme, were unique to the production of VX; -- growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured); -- over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020924-usia01.htm
6 Feb 2003 [George Tenet to Bob Graham:] We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaida.
6 Apr 2003 ALBU MUHAWISH, Iraq - U.S. soldiers evacuated an Iraqi military compound on Sunday after tests by a mobile laboratory confirmed evidence of sarin nerve gas.
2 Mar 2004 In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq.
15 Apr 2004 Iraqi Nuclear Gear Found in Europe. UNITED NATIONS report! The UN gave this report.
26 Apr 2004 Saddam's WMD have been found. (These are national news headlines here)
17 May 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent recently exploded.
11 Jun 2004 UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after.
25 Jun 2004 Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found.
2 Jul 2004 Chemical munitions found by Polish soldiers
6 Jul 2004 US removes Iraqi nuclear and radiological materials, joint operations conducted with US Dept of Energy and Defense.
8 Aug 2005 "U.S. soldiers stormed into a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, on August 8, 2005, and were surprised to find 1,500 gallons of chemical agents.
08 Nov 2005 Carl Levin: "I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to--look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that." Levin!!! And this just months ago. Levin!
December 2005 "Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee’s report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam.
This article lays out evidence of WMD found in Iraq and much more telling information regarding the war against terrorism that would shut the mouths of Grrrrrrofalo and Al Frankenstain. I have really had it from this sick war-mongers. They count the dead and say they support us? Their followers wave their "Bush lied" banners in our faces when we leave post and say they support us? Do I make policy? No.
15 Feb 2006 — ABC News has obtained 12 hours of tape recordings of Saddam Hussein meeting with top aides during the 1990s, tapes apparently recorded in Baghdad's version of the Oval Office. (ABC News strikes again)
The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.
At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.
"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
That is my response to all this business created by Sheehan and Moore and all those who denounce this current administration. The record stands and no amount of Air America arguments have been able to topple it. Not one shred of tangible, verifiable evidence. Nothing can stand up against this evidence of WMD. Nothing. No amount of denunciation or recanting can prevail. Chappaquiddick Teddy is asking us all to be morally responsible. John "blows-a-grenade-in-a-rice-heap-and-hits-himself-with-a-piece-of-rice-in-the-rump-and-gets-a-Purple-Heart" Kerry is asking us what? For action on his last stance, his former stance, his prior stance or his current stance or his future stance on Iraq? I get lost sometimes. Help a brother out. I want to honor vets, because I am one.
Mr. Kerry? You there? Hello? I grant that I was still a toddler when you were meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris and when Senator McCain was still in Hanoi, but I'm still willing to talk.
SGT Harris
A ping, as used here, is an invitation to others to come read a thread which might be of interest. Various folks maintain 'ping lists' of folks who are interested in a particular subject. Generally, you have to ask to get on the list; most are fairly open, but a few are restricted.
Interesting. The Venezuelan coup. What do you have to criticize about that? What would you forward as a decent resolution? UN intervention strategies and differences in political development? What? Hugo a homie of yours? And before you go accussing me of Mccarthyism, check your facts on geopolitical communism and Islam. It is no farce. Still alive and well, I'll have you know.
Gotcha on the immigration thing. Already mentioned. I'm just about an isolationist anyway. What? You want to argue about NAFTA. Bring it.
I'm in the military. You want a dispute on the Geneva and Hague Conventions? Would you care to dispute the US and UN position on "just war." Want to bring up Augustine? Want to fuss about that? I can debate the theological issues surrounding that. I've written a journal article about the differences on that issue with a thesis in the works contrasting the positions. Care to debate?
Excessive bipartisanship? You want to talk to a Libertarian about bipartisan politics? Huh? It's what we/they thrive on. It's what gives us/they a bandwagon to ride.
It's cute how you post one line responses. It really is.
Think I'm an uninformed military shmutz?
Tunehead, what?
What is "BTTT"?
What do you mean by "another mystery"?
Nice. There are those, I'll admit. This is a party that makes for strange bedfellows, no pun intended. Yes, I did. I meant that all the way. I'm insensitive. Oh, well.
So that's the end of it, huh? No liberal criticism of how I talked about Kennedy and Kerry? No critique of the GWOT?
It's telling isn't it?
The one thing that anyone could take away from my original post is that President Bush did not win both popular votes.
All the rest has not been argued against.
Telling isn't it?
Guess who is saying the same nasty things about Iran now and suggesting the same sort of actions? Trying to set another trap? Bet they already have their CIA and State Department Cronies in place to deny all those nasty things. Maybe another 2,000 american troops can be killed to get them back in power.
I don't agree with everything GWB has done, In fact, 50% would be a liberal estimate. But, then again, I don't agree with everything GOD has done. (Come on; a flood, Fire & brimstone, why not just make us the way he wants us?)
Using the lowest common denominator, there is no way GWB can perform to everyones satisfaction. So what is a President supposed to do? If he were a dictator, the answer is simple, whatever he wanted to do. What should a President of a democracy do, easy: whatever is best for all of the people. Wait a minute, I don't even agree with my mother as to what is best for everyone.
How about compromise? Well I really don't see much to compromise about between what my mother, I and the President think is best for the country. Why not let the guy do his job? (Maybe we should have a presidential committee instead of a president?)
That's it we can leave the compromising up to congress. After all the President wants, the Congress gives (or takes). But if that is to work, the congress must do what is best for everyone...Oh,...Oh...problem...Congress whants to do what is best for their individual constituents, or at best their constituencies. Hmm, seems we have a conflict, someone or everyone. But this is the USA, the people with the perfect constitutional government, 'fraid so.
Common sense, if not reason, makes it clear, we need one person making the decisions because what is good for everyone is not good for everyone. (I believe that consensus ended in 1777, if not before.)
So where are we now? Some accuse GWB of acting as a dictator. Sounds like he is doing his job. Why not let him continue. Hmm, isn't that why the founding fathers gave war powers to the executive branch?
Ya, lets start with public television. CUT government funding of that trash.
Guess you would have objected to FDR's post war and war time expenditures as well? The war time cost of 9/11 to the american economy and government are and continue to be horrendous. What part of "We are at War don't you understand".
Great post! Thank you for your service. You and your fellow soldiers have my deepest gratitude and respect.
Chavez survived because the Administration didn't send a strong signal of support to the folks running the coup. And you are totally mixed up - you accuse me of being a Chavez supporter, when it's your boy Bush's responsibility for him being in office today.
You want a dispute on the Geneva and Hague Conventions?
Which Geneva Convention do you want to discuss? The '51 Convention on Refugees? The '49 Convention on POWs? The 1949 Convention on protection of "Victims of War"? Based on context, you may be referencing the 1977 Protocol rather than the Convention itself.
As to the Hague Convention, I'm gussing that you don't want to discuss international child abductions.
Care to debate?
Yes, but which side do you want to pick - pro administration or anti-administration. Recall the position that the adminsitration has taken as to whether the Gitmo Guys are POWs - so if you argue too hard for the treaties, you may be attacking your own pro-administration position.
Don't rush with your replies -- I won't be back until tomorrow.
Ping
"It's a rehash of all the same crap and it's never true. But folks keep trying the same old tired arguments and it doesn't wash with reality."
Ah, but the left loves it and could carry on about it forever, as it gives them all the soapbox for an hour. I just wish the average American would turn the boob box off and get their 'news' from other sources. The left has NEVER been concerned about the Truth or Facts...they get in the way. If you notice, the questions are never asked that would get a truthful answer, either...only opinions and bias.
Loved this post! WooHoo!
A ping is an internet bugle call, and in this case it for those that will defend you here.
mark for later reading
Thank you!!
Most enjoyable reading.
Hope to see / read more sooner rather than later.
Unfortunately, the truth doesn't matter much. What matters is that there are enough who see the truth that stand beside him during this onslaught.
Here's what you left out,
During Clinton's presidency he bombed The Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan without approval from the UN or Congress because Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein were working together on WMD's,
and that Clinton launch a phony war on terror (again without going to the UN or congress First) after a WMD attack on the World Trade Center by an Iraqi Agent working with Al Queda using enough cyanide to kill 40,000 New Yorkers.
The democrats are stalling further efforts in this war on terror until such a time when they can get elected the Clinton with Bill's balls.
"I've heard all sorts of stuff about Halliburton. That's part of what they do. That's their jobs. They make money on defense. What else would they do? Ooh, Cheney used to be with Halliburton. That's a big conspiracy, right?"
And Michael Moore owns a large block of Haliburton stock.
I agree that President Bush has been a greater victim of unfair and unfounded criticism than any of the eleven Presidents whose tenures I have lived through.
The Dims don't have a case, but they go right on bawling and whining and beating pots and pans together like the spoiled two-year-olds that they are.
And the slimy, crawling vermin from elsewhere in the world utilize their warped rhetoric to undermine the best country on earth!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.