Cindy Sheehan at it again...
- Thread starter Puckstop31
- Start date
Twist words much? It is either that, or you have a lack of comprehension and poor grasp of the english language...
From the article that you quote, she says:
"Sheehan is quoted to have said, "I'm appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn't recognize how dangerous Alito's nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution. and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I've already paid the ultimate price."
You say:
Maybe I am missing it, but where does she say anything about her making the ultimate "sacrifice". She talks about paying the ultimate "price". Do you see the difference in those two words? Pull out a dictionary and find out what each word means. They are by no means interchangeable.
Did she pay the ultimate price for Bush's lying and deceit? Do you not think losing one's son is the ultimate price to pay?
When did you get back from Iraq?
From the article that you quote, she says:
"Sheehan is quoted to have said, "I'm appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn't recognize how dangerous Alito's nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution. and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I've already paid the ultimate price."
You say:
Maybe I am missing it, but where does she say anything about her making the ultimate "sacrifice". She talks about paying the ultimate "price". Do you see the difference in those two words? Pull out a dictionary and find out what each word means. They are by no means interchangeable.
Did she pay the ultimate price for Bush's lying and deceit? Do you not think losing one's son is the ultimate price to pay?
When did you get back from Iraq?
Ahhh, my internet stalker.... Thank you for the insult and putting your spin on this... AND for making it about ME and not Cindy Sheehan.
You ARE missing it. Sacrifice, Price.... THIS is your arguement? You are going to use THIS to defend that psycho?
I highlighted "I'VE" which is the entire premise of my post. If she is doing this all because of her Son, why say "i've"? Freudian slip maybe? Her SON made the sacrifice, not her.
No. There are more important things in this world than life or death. Really.
I did not serve in the curent Iraq conflict. I served in Bosnia 2 times and in Somalia.
You ARE missing it. Sacrifice, Price.... THIS is your arguement? You are going to use THIS to defend that psycho?
I highlighted "I'VE" which is the entire premise of my post. If she is doing this all because of her Son, why say "i've"? Freudian slip maybe? Her SON made the sacrifice, not her.
No. There are more important things in this world than life or death. Really.
I did not serve in the curent Iraq conflict. I served in Bosnia 2 times and in Somalia.
Well why are we arguing over a woman dragging her sons death through the mud, lets just let this go, and not drag her sons memory through our own mud.
If people ignore her and only remember her as a smal blip, then eventually the media will too, and thus she will fade away back to wherever she came from let things die in peace.
If people ignore her and only remember her as a smal blip, then eventually the media will too, and thus she will fade away back to wherever she came from let things die in peace.
Since you obviously have a problem understanding what she said...
price Audio pronunciation of "price" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prs)
n.
1. The cost at which something is obtained:
sac·ri·fice Audio pronunciation of "sacrifice" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skr-fs)
n.
1. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
Yes, she has paid the ultimate price. For many mothers, a son's life is even more valuable than their own. Do you have any kids? She paid the price for Bush's war, losing her son. What is your problem with that?
And even if she said she made a sacrifice.. so what?
Here are some synonyms for "Sacrifice":
cede, drop, endure, eschew, forfeit, forgo, immolate, kiss goodbye, let go, lose, offer, offer up, part with, renounce, spare, suffer, surrender, waive, yield
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Did she not do that when her son went off to Iraq. So, even if she had said "sacrifice" it would have been appropriate.
It is about Conservatives like you who start frothing at the mouth at each statement by someone like Cindy Sheehan, however innocent it might be, yet you look past the lies that were put forward by Bush and Co to launch this war and kill her son and thousands of others. You pass that off as "political fluffing".
Why not?
price Audio pronunciation of "price" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prs)
n.
1. The cost at which something is obtained:
sac·ri·fice Audio pronunciation of "sacrifice" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skr-fs)
n.
1. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
Yes, she has paid the ultimate price. For many mothers, a son's life is even more valuable than their own. Do you have any kids? She paid the price for Bush's war, losing her son. What is your problem with that?
And even if she said she made a sacrifice.. so what?
Here are some synonyms for "Sacrifice":
cede, drop, endure, eschew, forfeit, forgo, immolate, kiss goodbye, let go, lose, offer, offer up, part with, renounce, spare, suffer, surrender, waive, yield
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Did she not do that when her son went off to Iraq. So, even if she had said "sacrifice" it would have been appropriate.
It is about Conservatives like you who start frothing at the mouth at each statement by someone like Cindy Sheehan, however innocent it might be, yet you look past the lies that were put forward by Bush and Co to launch this war and kill her son and thousands of others. You pass that off as "political fluffing".
Why not?
I have zero problem with a mother grieving her son. However, I doubt her motivations. If her goal was to have the Iraq conflict end, why make odd statements about Israel or go to Venezuela and be seen in agreement with Chavez, you know, bashing the "evil" US.... THEN declare that you want to run for Senate????
Do you think her sons death gives her a "higher" moral standing to fight against the war?
This is where we disagree.... You say she is innocent, I say she has an agenda and she is exploiting her sons death to get "air time". I just can't believe she is being truthful about her motivations...
Also, I disagree that the President lied, so there really is no point in addressing that any more.
HAHAHAHA, I KNEW this was coming....
- I have disability in my left ear, a hearing loss that I developed from my service in the Army. (M1 tanks have a turbine engine, high pitch whine for HOURS and HOURS, wears on you...) It is only 30% for now, so I am technically still eligible to go back in on a waiver... Going back in with a waiver would not allow me to serve in direct fire combat units.
- Even so, I STILL tried to get back in, recently I might add. Want the Recruiter I used to give you a call?
I LOVE it when you pinko commies ask this question to people, you know, the old "if you are so for the war, why are you not serving..."
Simply put, you have no idea what it means to SERVE.
Military service is HARD, really, really hard at times. Clearly it is not for everyone, nor should it be. A desire to serve is noble, but simply put, not all people can function well in a military life style. Thankfully, our force is still all volunteer and I hope it stays that way.
Do you think her sons death gives her a "higher" moral standing to fight against the war?
This is where we disagree.... You say she is innocent, I say she has an agenda and she is exploiting her sons death to get "air time". I just can't believe she is being truthful about her motivations...
Also, I disagree that the President lied, so there really is no point in addressing that any more.
HAHAHAHA, I KNEW this was coming....
- I have disability in my left ear, a hearing loss that I developed from my service in the Army. (M1 tanks have a turbine engine, high pitch whine for HOURS and HOURS, wears on you...) It is only 30% for now, so I am technically still eligible to go back in on a waiver... Going back in with a waiver would not allow me to serve in direct fire combat units.
- Even so, I STILL tried to get back in, recently I might add. Want the Recruiter I used to give you a call?
I LOVE it when you pinko commies ask this question to people, you know, the old "if you are so for the war, why are you not serving..."
Simply put, you have no idea what it means to SERVE.
Military service is HARD, really, really hard at times. Clearly it is not for everyone, nor should it be. A desire to serve is noble, but simply put, not all people can function well in a military life style. Thankfully, our force is still all volunteer and I hope it stays that way.
Poll: Most think Bush is failing second term
President 'looking forward' to congressional campaigning
Friday, January 27, 2006; Posted: 8:22 a.m. EST (13:22 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate in November's congressional elections who opposes President Bush, and 58 percent consider his second term a failure so far, according to a poll released Thursday.
Fewer people consider Bush to be honest and trustworthy now than did a year ago, and 53 percent said they believe his administration deliberately misled the public about Iraq's purported weapons program before the U.S. invasion in 2003, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found.
Bush is preparing for his State of the Union address, set for next week, and told reporters Thursday that he is "looking forward" to campaigning for Republicans in November's elections. (Full story)
But the latest poll indicated Americans remain in a pessimistic mood.
Fifty-eight percent of those polled said Bush's second term has been a failure so far, while 38 percent said they consider it a success. A smaller number -- 52 percent -- consider his entire presidency a failure to date, with 46 percent calling it successful. (Complete poll results)
In the latter case, the numbers fall within those two questions' margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Bush defended his performance Thursday, pointing to an improved economy despite higher prices for gasoline, heating oil and natural gas. He said the November elections would be about "peace and prosperity."
"We've got a record, and a good one," he said. "That's what I intend to campaign on and explain to people why I made the decisions I made, and why they're necessary to protect the American people, and why they've been necessary to keep this economy strong -- and why the policies we've got will keep this economy strong in the future."
But 51 percent of those polled said they were more likely to vote for a candidate in congressional elections who opposes Bush, while 40 percent said they were likely to vote for a candidate who backs the president.
Bush's own approval rating remained at 43 percent, unchanged since mid-December, according to results released earlier this week. Another 54 percent disapproved of his job performance, that survey found.
Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed in the latest poll -- 62 percent -- said they were dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States, while 35 percent said they were satisfied.
And 64 percent said things in the United States have gotten worse in the past five years, while 28 percent said things have improved.
For the first time since Bush took office in 2001, a majority of those polled said the president -- who campaigned as "a uniter, not a divider" -- has been a divisive leader. Fifty-four percent called Bush a divider, while 41 percent called him a uniter.
Just over a third -- 34 percent -- said Bush had a clear plan for solving the nation's problems, and 44 percent agreed that he cared about the needs of people like them and shared their values.
A narrow majority of 51 percent said they consider Bush to be a strong and decisive leader, compared with 48 percent who disagreed. Although those totals fall within the margin of sampling error, they mark a decline from a year ago, when 61 percent called the president strong and decisive.
Split on honesty
Americans were divided evenly -- 49-49 -- on the question of Bush's honesty.
The number of those polled who consider Bush trustworthy improved from a November survey, when only 46 percent rated him honest. But the figure is down from a year ago, when 56 percent considered him honest and trustworthy, and only 41 percent disapproved.
Specifically, 53 percent said they believe his administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as Bush and other top officials argued on the eve of the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
President 'looking forward' to congressional campaigning
Friday, January 27, 2006; Posted: 8:22 a.m. EST (13:22 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate in November's congressional elections who opposes President Bush, and 58 percent consider his second term a failure so far, according to a poll released Thursday.
Fewer people consider Bush to be honest and trustworthy now than did a year ago, and 53 percent said they believe his administration deliberately misled the public about Iraq's purported weapons program before the U.S. invasion in 2003, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found.
Bush is preparing for his State of the Union address, set for next week, and told reporters Thursday that he is "looking forward" to campaigning for Republicans in November's elections. (Full story)
But the latest poll indicated Americans remain in a pessimistic mood.
Fifty-eight percent of those polled said Bush's second term has been a failure so far, while 38 percent said they consider it a success. A smaller number -- 52 percent -- consider his entire presidency a failure to date, with 46 percent calling it successful. (Complete poll results)
In the latter case, the numbers fall within those two questions' margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Bush defended his performance Thursday, pointing to an improved economy despite higher prices for gasoline, heating oil and natural gas. He said the November elections would be about "peace and prosperity."
"We've got a record, and a good one," he said. "That's what I intend to campaign on and explain to people why I made the decisions I made, and why they're necessary to protect the American people, and why they've been necessary to keep this economy strong -- and why the policies we've got will keep this economy strong in the future."
But 51 percent of those polled said they were more likely to vote for a candidate in congressional elections who opposes Bush, while 40 percent said they were likely to vote for a candidate who backs the president.
Bush's own approval rating remained at 43 percent, unchanged since mid-December, according to results released earlier this week. Another 54 percent disapproved of his job performance, that survey found.
Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed in the latest poll -- 62 percent -- said they were dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States, while 35 percent said they were satisfied.
And 64 percent said things in the United States have gotten worse in the past five years, while 28 percent said things have improved.
For the first time since Bush took office in 2001, a majority of those polled said the president -- who campaigned as "a uniter, not a divider" -- has been a divisive leader. Fifty-four percent called Bush a divider, while 41 percent called him a uniter.
Just over a third -- 34 percent -- said Bush had a clear plan for solving the nation's problems, and 44 percent agreed that he cared about the needs of people like them and shared their values.
A narrow majority of 51 percent said they consider Bush to be a strong and decisive leader, compared with 48 percent who disagreed. Although those totals fall within the margin of sampling error, they mark a decline from a year ago, when 61 percent called the president strong and decisive.
Split on honesty
Americans were divided evenly -- 49-49 -- on the question of Bush's honesty.
The number of those polled who consider Bush trustworthy improved from a November survey, when only 46 percent rated him honest. But the figure is down from a year ago, when 56 percent considered him honest and trustworthy, and only 41 percent disapproved.
Specifically, 53 percent said they believe his administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as Bush and other top officials argued on the eve of the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Bush, Aides Ignored CIA Caveats on Iraq
Clear-Cut Assertions Were Made Before Arms Assessment Was Completed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A17
In its fall 2002 campaign to win congressional support for a war against Iraq, President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons that CIA Director George J. Tenet defended Thursday.
In fact, they made some of their most unequivocal assertions about unconventional weapons before the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was completed.
Iraq "is a grave and gathering danger," Bush told the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002. At the White House two weeks later -- after referring to a British government report that Iraq could launch "a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order" is given -- he went on to say, "Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX -- nerve gas -- or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally."
Three weeks later, on the day the NIE was delivered to Congress, Bush told lawmakers in the White House Rose Garden that Iraq's current course was "a threat of unique urgency."
On Thursday, summarizing the NIE's conclusions, Tenet said: "They never said Iraq was an imminent threat."
The administration's prewar comments -- and the more cautious, qualified phrasings of intelligence analysts -- are at the heart of the debate over whether the faulty prewar claims resulted from bad intelligence or exaggeration by top White House officials -- or both.
Former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told senators last week that caveats often fall by the wayside "the higher you go up" the bureaucratic chain. At the top, he said, "you read the headlines, you read the summary, you're busy, you've got other things to do."
Administration supporters say Bush, Vice President Cheney and others were simply extrapolating from the comprehensive intelligence provided by Tenet's intelligence community. Critics say Bush and his Cabinet had already decided to go to war, regardless of what the intelligence efforts found.
The controversy, arising during the Democratic presidential primary campaign, has taken on a partisan hue. Some Democrats, however, say they perceived GOP partisanship earlier, when Republicans advocated an invasion of Iraq before the 2002 congressional elections. Bush said on Sept.13, 2002, that he did not think he could explain to voters the position of some Democrats who said Congress should wait for the United Nations to authorize the use of force before giving the president the authority he wanted.
Now that extended efforts to find weapons of mass destruction have proved futile, some are asking why Bush, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld used unequivocal rhetoric to describe the threat from Iraq when the intelligence on the subject was much more nuanced and subjective.
For example, when Bush on Sept. 24, 2002, repeated the British claim that Iraq's chemical weapons could be activated within 45 minutes, he ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source and that the claim never appeared in the October 2002 U.S. estimate.
On Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney said:"Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." The estimate, several weeks later, would say it would take as many as five years, unless Baghdad immediately obtained weapons-grade materials.
In the same speech, Cheney raised the specter that Hussein would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, a prospect invoked often in the weeks to come. "Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitute as grave a threat as can be imagined," Cheney said.
It would be more than a month later that a declassified portion of the NIE would show that U.S. intelligence analysts had forecast that Hussein would give such weapons to terrorists only if Iraq were invaded and he faced annihilation.
"The probability of him initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future . . . I think would be low," a senior CIA official told the Senate intelligence committee during a classified briefing on the estimate on Oct. 2, 2002. The CIA released a partial transcript five days later after committee Democrats complained that a published "white paper" on Iraq's weapons had not given the public a fair reading of what the classified NIE contained.
On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney said of Hussein on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." Cheney was referring to the aluminum tubes that some analysts believed could be used for a centrifuge to help make nuclear materials; others believed they were for an antiaircraft rocket.
Such absolute certainty, however, did not appear in the estimate. Tenet said Thursday that the controversy has yet to be cleared up.
On Sept. 19, 2002, Rumsfeld, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." The October estimate contained no similar language.
Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18, 2002, Rumsfeld described an immediate threat from biological weapons. Hussein, he said, could deploy "sleeper cells armed with biological weapons to attack us from within -- and then deny any knowledge or connection to the attacks."
While the intelligence community believed Hussein had biological agents such as anthrax, and that they could be quickly produced and weaponized for delivery by bombs, missiles or aerial sprayers, the October 2002 estimate said: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal."
Tenet's "provisional bottom line" on biological weapons, he said Thursday, is that research and development efforts were underway in Iraq "that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not know if production took place -- and just as clearly -- we have not yet found biological weapons."
Clear-Cut Assertions Were Made Before Arms Assessment Was Completed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A17
In its fall 2002 campaign to win congressional support for a war against Iraq, President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons that CIA Director George J. Tenet defended Thursday.
In fact, they made some of their most unequivocal assertions about unconventional weapons before the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was completed.
Iraq "is a grave and gathering danger," Bush told the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002. At the White House two weeks later -- after referring to a British government report that Iraq could launch "a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order" is given -- he went on to say, "Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX -- nerve gas -- or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally."
Three weeks later, on the day the NIE was delivered to Congress, Bush told lawmakers in the White House Rose Garden that Iraq's current course was "a threat of unique urgency."
On Thursday, summarizing the NIE's conclusions, Tenet said: "They never said Iraq was an imminent threat."
The administration's prewar comments -- and the more cautious, qualified phrasings of intelligence analysts -- are at the heart of the debate over whether the faulty prewar claims resulted from bad intelligence or exaggeration by top White House officials -- or both.
Former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told senators last week that caveats often fall by the wayside "the higher you go up" the bureaucratic chain. At the top, he said, "you read the headlines, you read the summary, you're busy, you've got other things to do."
Administration supporters say Bush, Vice President Cheney and others were simply extrapolating from the comprehensive intelligence provided by Tenet's intelligence community. Critics say Bush and his Cabinet had already decided to go to war, regardless of what the intelligence efforts found.
The controversy, arising during the Democratic presidential primary campaign, has taken on a partisan hue. Some Democrats, however, say they perceived GOP partisanship earlier, when Republicans advocated an invasion of Iraq before the 2002 congressional elections. Bush said on Sept.13, 2002, that he did not think he could explain to voters the position of some Democrats who said Congress should wait for the United Nations to authorize the use of force before giving the president the authority he wanted.
Now that extended efforts to find weapons of mass destruction have proved futile, some are asking why Bush, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld used unequivocal rhetoric to describe the threat from Iraq when the intelligence on the subject was much more nuanced and subjective.
For example, when Bush on Sept. 24, 2002, repeated the British claim that Iraq's chemical weapons could be activated within 45 minutes, he ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source and that the claim never appeared in the October 2002 U.S. estimate.
On Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney said:"Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." The estimate, several weeks later, would say it would take as many as five years, unless Baghdad immediately obtained weapons-grade materials.
In the same speech, Cheney raised the specter that Hussein would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, a prospect invoked often in the weeks to come. "Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitute as grave a threat as can be imagined," Cheney said.
It would be more than a month later that a declassified portion of the NIE would show that U.S. intelligence analysts had forecast that Hussein would give such weapons to terrorists only if Iraq were invaded and he faced annihilation.
"The probability of him initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future . . . I think would be low," a senior CIA official told the Senate intelligence committee during a classified briefing on the estimate on Oct. 2, 2002. The CIA released a partial transcript five days later after committee Democrats complained that a published "white paper" on Iraq's weapons had not given the public a fair reading of what the classified NIE contained.
On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney said of Hussein on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." Cheney was referring to the aluminum tubes that some analysts believed could be used for a centrifuge to help make nuclear materials; others believed they were for an antiaircraft rocket.
Such absolute certainty, however, did not appear in the estimate. Tenet said Thursday that the controversy has yet to be cleared up.
On Sept. 19, 2002, Rumsfeld, speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." The October estimate contained no similar language.
Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18, 2002, Rumsfeld described an immediate threat from biological weapons. Hussein, he said, could deploy "sleeper cells armed with biological weapons to attack us from within -- and then deny any knowledge or connection to the attacks."
While the intelligence community believed Hussein had biological agents such as anthrax, and that they could be quickly produced and weaponized for delivery by bombs, missiles or aerial sprayers, the October 2002 estimate said: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal."
Tenet's "provisional bottom line" on biological weapons, he said Thursday, is that research and development efforts were underway in Iraq "that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not know if production took place -- and just as clearly -- we have not yet found biological weapons."
Wow....those two "Cut and Paste" posts were lamer than the first......Listen you can blame The USA and our President for everything that goes on...whatever...I understand thats what you wacko liberals do....Blame blame blame who is to blame....Fact remains that everyone thought he had WMD....and even if, and notice the word IF, nothing was ever there the facilities were...and Saddam had every intention of putting those facilities on-line as soon a sanctions were lifted.....But you go ahead and continue to defend the enemy......
Did you even read the articles?
The MAJORITY of Americans now believe that the President of the US lied to them. So, a large number of conservatives also believe that Bush lied. The other article proves that Bush and his cronies exaggerated the danger.
Maybe you don't follow the news coverage or maybe you don't have the capacity to use new information to modify and change your opinions. You are just stuck in your old rut. Sounds like a true CONSERVATIVE. LOL.
Now, go back and bury your head in the sand and refuse to read, listen to or believe anything that challenges your view point. You might hurt your poor little brain.
The MAJORITY of Americans now believe that the President of the US lied to them. So, a large number of conservatives also believe that Bush lied. The other article proves that Bush and his cronies exaggerated the danger.
Maybe you don't follow the news coverage or maybe you don't have the capacity to use new information to modify and change your opinions. You are just stuck in your old rut. Sounds like a true CONSERVATIVE. LOL.
Now, go back and bury your head in the sand and refuse to read, listen to or believe anything that challenges your view point. You might hurt your poor little brain.
Hmmmm...
2nd Article... If that article is true and his opposition believes all that evidence, how come there are no calls for The President's impeachment? Seriously, if there is that much evidence he lied, impeach his ass. Sitting here on the internet, bitching about it solves nothing. ****
*** But it sure is FUN.
2nd Article... If that article is true and his opposition believes all that evidence, how come there are no calls for The President's impeachment? Seriously, if there is that much evidence he lied, impeach his ass. Sitting here on the internet, bitching about it solves nothing. ****
*** But it sure is FUN.
Okay.....I can see talking with you is a waste of time...pointing out truth....is not a personal attack....LOL
BTW...you were displaying your arrogance and air of superiority with your first post in this thread....insulting peoples intelligence...I have come to expect nothing less from people like you….and it makes me sick...what makes you so right?? Other than your own belief that you are?
BTW...you were displaying your arrogance and air of superiority with your first post in this thread....insulting peoples intelligence...I have come to expect nothing less from people like you….and it makes me sick...what makes you so right?? Other than your own belief that you are?
Last edited: