What should we do about bin Laden?

Aaron wrote:So now you're saying Iraq attacked us?

No. So why are we there?

ziggy wrote:Since we're just speculating, there is no doubt in my mind that were Bush able to turn back the clock 6 years, knowing what we do about the Iraq war now, he would have avoided the invasion of Iraq like the plague- like the plague it has become.

This I know.

HORSEPUCKY

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So now you're saying Iraq attacked us?

No. So why are we there?

GWB. I gave you the addy and phone number a few weeks ago. Did you lose it?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So now you're saying Iraq attacked us?

No. So why are we there?

GWB.

That's what I've been saying all along here. But you and Sam say that's only because I hate Bush because Gore, whom I didn't even vote for, didn't become President.

Now you agree with me.

But I've said consistently that we are in Iraq because of GWB all along. Why can't you make up your mind?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So now you're saying Iraq attacked us?

No. So why are we there?

GWB.

That's what I've been saying all along here. But you and Sam say that's only because I hate Bush because Gore, whom I didn't even vote for, didn't become President.

Now you agree with me.

But I've said consistently that we are in Iraq because of GWB all along. Why can't you make up your mind?

You stated I would have agreed with how Gore responded to Iraq so I must agree with you about GWB. That's a load. I wasn't talking about Gore and Iraq, I was talking about Gore and 9/11. He would have failed to respond to that. Your hatred of Bush keep you bringing Iraq into the equation while ignoring 9/11. Catch up man.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So now you're saying Iraq attacked us?

No. So why are we there?

GWB.

That's what I've been saying all along here. But you and Sam say that's only because I hate Bush because Gore, whom I didn't even vote for, didn't become President.

Now you agree with me.

But I've said consistently that we are in Iraq because of GWB all along. Why can't you make up your mind?

You stated I would have agreed with how Gore responded to Iraq so I must agree with you about GWB. That's a load. I wasn't talking about Gore and Iraq, I was talking about Gore and 9/11. He would have failed to respond to that. Your hatred of Bush keep you bringing Iraq into the equation while ignoring 9/11. Catch up man.

So, other than to tell the world that "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" how did GW Bush respond to 9/11? He did send some troops into Afghanistan, but later pulled some or most of them back out to invade Iraq.

Both Bush and Cheney, when pressed, said that they did not believe that Iraq was particulary complicit in 9/11.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So now you're saying Iraq attacked us?

No. So why are we there?

GWB.

That's what I've been saying all along here. But you and Sam say that's only because I hate Bush because Gore, whom I didn't even vote for, didn't become President.

Now you agree with me.

But I've said consistently that we are in Iraq because of GWB all along. Why can't you make up your mind?

"DUH", do ya really think you just told us something that we didn't already know?

Maybe you wasa thinking that I believed that it was Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi that was responsible. Is that what you are thinking?

Well, that doesn't surprise me any.

.

ziggy wrote:So, other than to tell the world that "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" how did GW Bush respond to 9/11? He did send some troops into Afghanistan, but later pulled some or most of them back out to invade Iraq.

Both Bush and Cheney, when pressed, said that they did not believe that Iraq was particulary complicit in 9/11.

So, ..... and if you "pressed" Bush and Cheney, or the FBI, CIA, INS or any member of Congress on 9/10 ......... they all would have surely told you that "they did not believe that Afghanistan would be particulary complicit in the staging of any form of a terrorist attack within the United States".

And they all would have been wrong, ....... "3,000 dead wrong", ...... right Zigster.

GEEEZE, its too bad for those 3,000 dead that George Bush didn't "call for" the invasion of Afghanistan ..... on the very day he was sworn in as President.

Of course, that would have also pissed you off to hi heaven, ...... right Zigster.



.
,

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:So, other than to tell the world that "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" how did GW Bush respond to 9/11? He did send some troops into Afghanistan, but later pulled some or most of them back out to invade Iraq.

Both Bush and Cheney, when pressed, said that they did not believe that Iraq was particulary complicit in 9/11.

So, ..... and if you "pressed" Bush and Cheney, or the FBI, CIA, INS or any member of Congress on 9/10 ......... they all would have surely told you that "they did not believe that Afghanistan would be particulary complicit in the staging of any form of a terrorist attack within the United States".

And so your point is what? That Bush and Cheney and the FBI, CIA, INS and members of Congress don't know as much as they pretend to about what's going on and about to go on in the world?

Duh, that's elementary, Dr. Watson.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:Since we're just speculating, there is no doubt in my mind that were Bush able to turn back the clock 6 years, knowing what we do about the Iraq war now, he would have avoided the invasion of Iraq like the plague- like the plague it has become.

This I know.

HORSEPUCKY

.

It's no more "horsepucky" than Aaron's speculation that:

Aaron wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that Gore's response would have been the same as Clinton's was to the Cole incident. Or Somila. Or any number of other incidents.

This I know.

You and Aaron accuse me of going 'round and round'. But when Aaron sees that I've pushed Bush and Cheney into another of their lying corners, he wants to change the subject to Gore, or to Clintion, or to Kerry- as demonstrated again just above. Who's really going 'round and round'?

SamCogar wrote:GEEEZE, its too bad for those 3,000 dead that George Bush didn't "call for" the invasion of Afghanistan ..... on the very day he was sworn in as President.

Of course, that would have also pissed you off to hi heaven, ...... right Zigster.

If it had been "sold" to Congress and to the American people based on a bunch of lies and unbelievable hype, yeah, it would have. But since trading American blood for middle eastern oil has not been at particular issue in Afghanistan- that we know of- what would have been the use?

ziggy wrote:
So, other than to tell the world that "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" how did GW Bush respond to 9/11? He did send some troops into Afghanistan, but later pulled some or most of them back out to invade Iraq.

Both Bush and Cheney, when pressed, said that they did not believe that Iraq was particulary complicit in 9/11.

We disagree with Bush's response to 9/11. I think I'm right but I won't change your mind so I'm not going to bother trying.

What I will say is that even using your standards, that is more then Gore would have done.

ziggy wrote:You and Aaron accuse me of going 'round and round'. But when Aaron sees that I've pushed Bush and Cheney into another of their lying corners, he wants to change the subject to Gore, or to Clintion, or to Kerry- as demonstrated again just above. Who's really going 'round and round'?

While I've seen tons of speculation, I've yet to see proof of a Bush lie.

And I'm not changing the subject away from Bush. I'm saying he is better then Gore would have been.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
So, other than to tell the world that "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" how did GW Bush respond to 9/11? He did send some troops into Afghanistan, but later pulled some or most of them back out to invade Iraq.

Both Bush and Cheney, when pressed, said that they did not believe that Iraq was particulary complicit in 9/11.

We disagree with Bush's response to 9/11. I think I'm right but I won't change your mind so I'm not going to bother trying.

What I will say is that even using your standards, that is more then Gore would have done.

You accuse me of dodging, changing the thread topic. But when I talk about Bush, you want to talk about Gore, or Clinton. But if the best you can say about Bush is that Gore would have been worse- well, if that's all you've got, then you haven't got much.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:You and Aaron accuse me of going 'round and round'. But when Aaron sees that I've pushed Bush and Cheney into another of their lying corners, he wants to change the subject to Gore, or to Clintion, or to Kerry- as demonstrated again just above. Who's really going 'round and round'?

While I've seen tons of speculation, I've yet to see proof of a Bush lie.

Have you seen "proof" of a Bush truth?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:You and Aaron accuse me of going 'round and round'. But when Aaron sees that I've pushed Bush and Cheney into another of their lying corners, he wants to change the subject to Gore, or to Clintion, or to Kerry- as demonstrated again just above. Who's really going 'round and round'?

While I've seen tons of speculation, I've yet to see proof of a Bush lie.

Have you seen "proof" of a Bush truth?

Ahhhhhh OK

Whatever dude...

ziggy wrote:
You accuse me of dodging, changing the thread topic. But when I talk about Bush, you want to talk about Gore, or Clinton. But if the best you can say about Bush is that Gore would have been worse- well, if that's all you've got, then you haven't got much.

Ain't it about time for you to come up with some new material?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
You accuse me of dodging, changing the thread topic. But when I talk about Bush, you want to talk about Gore, or Clinton. But if the best you can say about Bush is that Gore would have been worse- well, if that's all you've got, then you haven't got much.

Ain't it about time for you to come up with some new material?

No, not as long as Bush continues to be even a bigger liar than was Lyndon Johnson even.

ziggy wrote:
And so your point is what?

Since you had to ask what my point was, ....... even drawing you a dozen or so pictures would be of no help in your understanding, ....... so your question is mute.

ziggy wrote:That Bush and Cheney and the FBI, CIA, INS and members of Congress don't know as much as they pretend to about what's going on and about to go on in the world?

Duh, that's elementary, Dr. Watson.

Well now, Bush and Cheney and the FBI, CIA, INS and members of Congress know for damn sure Saddam is never going to order or participate in any terrorist attacks on the US.

And they also know that there has not been one since the invasion of Iraq.

And most of Congress know what's going on and about to go on in the world .... and that's why the Democrats keep renageing on all their promises to their supporters.

Their pretend "dog n' pony show" is for your benefit, Zigster.

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
You accuse me of dodging, changing the thread topic. But when I talk about Bush, you want to talk about Gore, or Clinton. But if the best you can say about Bush is that Gore would have been worse- well, if that's all you've got, then you haven't got much.

Ain't it about time for you to come up with some new material?

No, not as long as Bush continues to be even a bigger liar than was Lyndon Johnson even.

By your standards.

What, about 2/10ths of 1 percent of the population agree with you???

Like I said, whatever dude...

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
You accuse me of dodging, changing the thread topic. But when I talk about Bush, you want to talk about Gore, or Clinton. But if the best you can say about Bush is that Gore would have been worse- well, if that's all you've got, then you haven't got much.

Ain't it about time for you to come up with some new material?

No, not as long as Bush continues to be even a bigger liar than was Lyndon Johnson even.

By your standards.

What, about 2/10ths of 1 percent of the population agree with you???

Like I said, whatever dude...

And, like you've said several times here- the majority is not always right.

Nope, the majority ain't always right.

But if you're 2/10th's of 1 percent, you ain't even in the ball park. You purchased a scalped ticket that someone made on the puter so you're stuck outside whining about everything coming down the pike and missing the game that's going on inside...

A whole lot more than 2/10ths of one percent of Americans disagree with Bush about Iraq.

A whole lot more than 2/10ths of one percent of Americans disagree with Bush about Iraq.

It is more like 2/3 of Americans think that Bush has been doing a sub-par job.

TerryRC wrote:A whole lot more than 2/10ths of one percent of Americans disagree with Bush about Iraq.

It is more like 2/3 of Americans think that Bush has been doing a sub-par job.

So, you believe the Democrat's POTUS candidate will get 2/3s of the 2008 General Election votes that are cast, .......... huh?

Would you care to wager some money on that?

.