Where are the protesters now???

[Repo Man]

You know... Cindy Sheehan, and the anti war Hippies?? :confused:

Seems like they had big "Anti War" marches Worldwide during W's administration on a regular basis - now not a peep. :Poke:

Could it be that now that their boy is in charge - even increasing troop levels - that the war(s) are suddenly justified??

Maybe they all got jobs from the new government stimulus programs and don't have time to protest.

Or, they are two faced bastards.

Ideas??

[extrabill]

You know... Cindy Sheehan, and the anti war Hippies?? :confused:

Seems like they had big "Anti War" marches Worldwide during W's administration on a regular basis - now not a peep. :Poke:

Could it be that now that their boy is in charge - even increasing troop levels - that the war(s) are suddenly justified??

Maybe they all got jobs from the new government stimulus programs and don't have time to protest.

Or, they are two faced bastards.

Ideas??

Weren't they primarily opposed to the war in Iraq, which is being drawn down?

[Venom51]

So war in Iraq bad....War in Afghanistan good.

Bush lied....

Obama is Jesus.

And just to clarify bill...you are perfectly ok with soldiers dying in Afghanistan right?

[mfbRSV]

http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m8d19-Cindy-Sheehan-to-protest-Obama-in-Marthas-Vineyard-next-week

[RockRocks]

http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m8d19-Cindy-Sheehan-to-protest-Obama-in-Marthas-Vineyard-next-week

So she admits the Anti War support behind her protest was really an Anti Republican agenda. Misguided, though honest. More than can be said for the lesftists. :up:

[extrabill]

So war in Iraq bad....War in Afghanistan good.



Um, yes. I though everyone knew that.

[XFBO]

Weren't they primarily opposed to the war in Iraq, which is being drawn down?Nope.

[J McStupidhead]

Weren't they primarily opposed to the war in Iraq, which is being drawn down?

BZZZZZZZ!!! Wrong. From Hardball:

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that’s where they were being harbored. That’s where they were headquartered. Shouldn’t we go after their headquarters? Doesn’t that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. … But I’m seeing that we’re sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn’t the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we’re looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we’re obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that’s who they told us was responsible for 9/11.
---------------------------------------------
Can you guess the date of the transcript?

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't when the grand poobah was in office....

ps...this transcript shows how blissfully clueless this woman is. The little darling seems to think we declared war on the country of afghanistan :rolleyes:

[J McStupidhead]

Um, yes. I though everyone knew that.

Yeah...everyone but the belle of the liberal party apparently:rolleyes:

[J McStupidhead]

Wow...bombshell...newsflash....light bulb...dingalingaling

"I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that even if they supported Obama, he doesn't represent much change."
-Cindy Sheehan

That's almost worthy of a new signature.

[XFBO]

Almost?

Either you take it or I will....:D

[panthercity]

We had good reason to go into Afghanistan. We never had good reason to go into Iraq. I am not anti war, I'm anti dumb ass war. Iraq was a dumb ass' war.

[Venom51]

We had good reason to go into Afghanistan. We never had good reason to go into Iraq. I am not anti war, I'm anti dumb ass war. Iraq was a dumb ass' war.

What's the good reason?

We going in there to get back all the weapons we gave them.

[XFBO]

We had good reason to go into Afghanistan. We never had good reason to go into Iraq. I am not anti war, I'm anti dumb ass war. Iraq was a dumb ass' war.Dumbass only after we invaded.....before that, there were TWO administrations who thought differently about Iraq. I'd like to ask you something I asked many yrs ago and never really got an answer, what would your position have been if the former Admin ignored Iraq, went to Afghan and somehow OUR forces were attacked from within Iraq, whether it be government supported or not, costing thousands of American lives??? What kind of hell would have the former Admin been (rightfully) put through for being so negligent after 9/11?

If you feel this question would rehash an entire BS thread that's been covered then PM me your thoughts cuz like I said....no one who has opposed the Iraq war really ever gave me an answer.

[RCjohn]

Let's be clear, both theatres are being run by the dumb ass politicians. ;)

[panthercity]

What's the good reason?To actually prosecute some of those responsible for 9-11.

[panthercity]

Dumbass only after we invaded.....before that, there were TWO administrations who thought differently about Iraq. I'd like to ask you something I asked many yrs ago and never really got an answer, what would your position have been if the former Admin ignored Iraq, went to Afghan and somehow OUR forces were attacked from within Iraq, whether it be government supported or not, costing thousands of American lives??? What kind of hell would have the former Admin been (rightfully) put through for being so negligent after 9/11?The same way I would feel if we colonized the moon and somehow OUR forces were attacked by Martians whether it be government supported or not, costing thousands of American lives.

[panthercity]

Let's be clear, both theatres are being run by the dumb ass politicians. ;)
Is now and ever has been, world without end, amen.

[RCjohn]

Is now and ever has been, world without end, amen.

I hear you.

You got to participate in the mother of all political wars huh?

[XFBO]

The same way I would feel if we colonized the moon and somehow OUR forces were attacked by Martians whether it be government supported or not, costing thousands of American lives. :crackup:
Yea it's always an impossibility to some of you until shit happens, then yall just bitch and moan about it. Let's conveniently ignore everything the Clinton Admin told us about Iraq leading up to 9/11 just cuuuzzzz it doesnt fit into your fictional story.

BTW- A simple and honest reply or PM would have sufficed but I guess another dodged reply from the left will have to do. :up:

[panthercity]

Dodged? How do you figure? You proposed a scenario, I replied with an equally likely scenario.

OBTW, when the shit comes to pass, I do not bitch and moan about it.

[tzrider]

Dumbass only after we invaded.....before that, there were TWO administrations who thought differently about Iraq. I'd like to ask you something I asked many yrs ago and never really got an answer, what would your position have been if the former Admin ignored Iraq, went to Afghan and somehow OUR forces were attacked from within Iraq, whether it be government supported or not, costing thousands of American lives??? What kind of hell would have the former Admin been (rightfully) put through for being so negligent after 9/11?

If you feel this question would rehash an entire BS thread that's been covered then PM me your thoughts cuz like I said....no one who has opposed the Iraq war really ever gave me an answer.

You're a 'Red Dawn' freak aren't you? There were as much chances of a Iraqi attack than one from Italy, New Zealand or Panama...

[weber#465]

This doesn't happen very often..:D


We had good reason to go into Afghanistan. We never had good reason to go into Iraq. I am not anti war, I'm anti dumb ass war. Iraq was a dumb ass' war.


:stupid:

[J McStupidhead]

Almost?

Either you take it or I will....:D

I'll give you the rights to it....


















....for a price :D

[panthercity]

This doesn't happen very often..:D





:stupid:

What doesn' thappen very often?

[R Acree]

What doesn' thappen very often?

My guess would be agree with you.

[weber#465]

My guess would be agree with you.

:up:


Hi PC

[panthercity]

What doesn' thappen very often?

My guess would be agree with you.

:up:


Hi PC :crackup:

I don't understand. I'm a most agreeable fellow...

[XFBO]

You're a 'Red Dawn' freak aren't you? There were as much chances of a Iraqi attack than one from Italy, New Zealand or Panama...Uh yea, that's me a "Red Dawn" fan, you got me pegged. :rolleyes:

I guess it's a figment of my imagination what Bill, Madeleine, George and many other prominent Democrats said about Saddam just a short time before GWB took office. I guess yall truly believe if you keep ignoring facts that they will go away.

[panthercity]

Are you referring to then President Clinton's arguments in support of air strikes on Iraq? His complaints that Hussein was not following UN mandates? His opposition to Hussein having nuclear arms, poison gas and other WMDs?

He objected to all of these.

Butt, he did not agree with the alleged tie between Hussein and al Queda.

Picking and chosing facts doent get it done.

[panthercity]

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.


Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we’ve had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam’s latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam’s actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations — Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman — warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq’s cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM’s chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

“In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.”

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.


(more)

[panthercity]

(Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike continued)
And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community — led by the United States — has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday — make no mistake — he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team — including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser — I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq’s a month’s head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion — resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq’s neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[RCjohn]

So the Iraqi war was justified? :D

[panthercity]

Toppling Hussein may have been justified while we are living up to our role as "World Policeman" butt not on the pretenses presented as fact that we used to invade this last time.

[RCjohn]

Was all of that verbage posted explaining when Clinton had the pilots come close to bombing important stuff to draw attention away from his Oval Office adultery? Didn't we just blow up an outhouse or something like that? :p

[pefrey]

Obama is Jesus.



I thought Obama was Hitler? I'm confused. :Poke:

[RCjohn]

Isn't Bush suppose to be Hitler?

Damn, I just can't remember the nicknames. :(

[panthercity]

Obama is JesusJesus is the first Communist...
I thought Obama was Hitler? I'm confused. :Poke:I thought he was The Joker?

Isn't Bush suppose to be Hitler?Bush can't be Hitler. Bush retired. Hitler didn't.


Damn, I just can't remember the nicknames. :(King George and The Obamessiah.

[R Acree]

King George and The Obamessiah.

Sounds like a new rap duo.

[tzrider]

Bush can't be Hitler. Bush retired. Hitler didn't.

Hitler burned out...

[XFBO]

Are you referring to........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

Particularly what Evan Bayh says, "the lessons we learned following 9/11 were that we cant wait til we're attacked again."

[Venom51]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

Particularly what Evan Bayh says, "the lessons we learned following 9/11 were that we cant wait til we're attacked again."

I sometimes wonder if it just doesn't register with some of these people that this footage of what they say doesn't just go away after it's been played once or twice.

[todzuki]

You guys are so funny. Still trying to blame others for the mistakes of those you voted for. Still trying to justify it. Still blaming Clinton while you're at it.

I especially like the more recent clips. The ones where Pelosi says there is no questions Saddam has WMD, etc.. I wonder where she got that intel? Actually, I don't. She could have just as easily had an R by her title, but it wouldn't work so well with the video.

The Shrub was the worst President in American History, deal with it. Hell, I even heard on FOX news today that former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge came out with the news that he was instructed by the Bush Administration to elevate the terror threat level nationwide before the 2004 election to scare folks into reelecting W.

Yeah, that's honorable.

Sheehan has never spoken for the moderates, the democrats, or even liberals. She speaks for the nuts. Only nuts and righties looking for ammo pay her any mind. Only a nut would dishonor her own son's sacrifice like she has.

[XFBO]

You guys are so funny. Still trying to blame others for the mistakes of those you voted for. Still trying to justify it. Still blaming Clinton while you're at it.
Isnt that what we're hearing these days with Bush......still?


I especially like the more recent clips.Recent? Did you pay any attention to the vid or does it hurt too much to watch? The clip with Pelosi was taken in 2002. Do you really think your democrats are dumb enough to take intel that only existed since GWB came into office? I'd have to guess no. The intel was clearly faulty from the late 90's (Clinton reducing the size of the CIA didnt help I suppose) OR maybe it was good intel and GWB gave them too much time while trying to appease the democrats and they were moved. We'll probably never know.


BTW- Still crickets from you PC or have the hamsters jumped off the modem wheel and called it a night?

[panthercity]

XFBO, you might remember that I can't do vids.

Oh, and I generally shut down around 5 or 5:30 Central.

[HPPT]

Oh, and I generally shut down around 5 or 5:30 Central.

That's cutting it close for the early-bird specials?

[XFBO]

XFBO, you might remember that I can't do vids.

Oh, and I generally shut down around 5 or 5:30 Central.FIVE O'CLOCK?!?!? Bingo night or happy hour? :D

In a nutshell, it's several members of the Clinton Admin and other prominent Democrats discussing the seriousness of Saddam, WMD's, nuclear aspirations and how he would use them given the opportunity and his non compliance with the UN. The video excerpts were taken from 1998 speeches all the way through to 2002.

For those who will attempt to use the BS excuse, 'they were given faulty intel by the Bush Admin', not in 1998 they werent and I highly doubt any democrat would have accepted intel only from a yr prior when GWB took office, so my point is IF the intel was truly poor it began long before GWB took office.

My point to you earlier is that if Bush had ignored Iraq (esp. since the vids I posted above exist) and something had happened to our troops while in Afghan from within Iraq's borders, he would have been shredded apart by every single Democrat and everyone else for that matter. 9/11 changed everything and I truly believe I would have supported anyone who took Bush's approach to Iraq.

[panthercity]

FIVE O'CLOCK?!?!? Bingo night or happy hour? :D Anna heads home around five most days. I try to have hot tea for her when she comes through the door. And, depending on what I'm making, fixing dinner demands some time. Since I work from home I make some trade-offs. Anna, on the other hand, is happy to stop and pick up a bottle of wine or whiskey on the way home.

In a nutshell, it's several members of the Clinton Admin and other prominent Democrats discussing the seriousness of Saddam, WMD's, nuclear aspirations and how he would use them given the opportunity and his non compliance with the UN. The video excerpts were taken from 1998 speeches all the way through to 2002. Take a look at posts 30, 31 and 32 (IIRC) for this peviously plowed ground.

For those who will attempt to use the BS excuse, 'they were given faulty intel by the Bush Admin', not in 1998 they werent and I highly doubt any democrat would have accepted intel only from a yr prior when GWB took office, so my point is IF the intel was truly poor it began long before GWB took office. What intel did they gather concerning Hussein and al-Queda and/or attacks on the US mainland?

My point to you earlier is that if Bush had ignored Iraq (esp. since the vids I posted above exist) and something had happened to our troops while in Afghan from within Iraq's borders, he would have been shredded apart by every single Democrat and everyone else for that matter. 9/11 changed everything and I truly believe I would have supported anyone who took Bush's approach to Iraq. Sure. Just like he would have been pilloried if the Saudi's had joined forces with the Taliban. If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

I don't have as much problem with Bush's approach to Iraq as I do his administrations attempts to sell that invasion to Americans by trotting out 9-11 as justification. Of course, I still have problems with the prosecution of the war and his administration ignoring the advice of the Joint Chiefs and other military sources. Sorta reminds me of the "college boys" that were put in charge of the not-war in Vietnam.