Flashermac Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Finally' date=' former Air National Guard 1LT Bush has come under hostile fire! [/quote'] Too bad he didn't get hit, he would have gotten a purple heart. No, that's John Kerry you're thinking of. I would expect a chicken hawk like you to say something like that, rogie. You praise the person who might have went AOL but are critical of the person who goes to war. Like I said before, you sound like a complete jackass! If Obama doesn't pull every soldier out of Iraq within the first day of him getting in Office, then he officially becomes a chickenhawk according to your "logic" thinking. Obama leaving one soldier in Iraq means he supports this war, yet he never went to war. Chickenhawk at it's finest. Why do you support this retard? I just don't understand. youngfarang, I have already responded to this question in another thread. You are a chicken hawk. You are for war but refuse to supprt it. When Obama becomes president, he becomes the Comander in Chief. He is head of the military. He wil be involved with the military. By definition, a chicken hawk, like yourself, promotes war but refuses to participate. When Obama becomes President, he will have to deal with the wars (involvement) whereas you will not have any involvement but continue to run your mouth as a Chicken Hawk. You keep running your mouth without any facts. Im still in high school. Im sorry for wanting to graduate before I start my career in the field I choose. Next time you try being a smartass be sure to base your arguement on facts and not complete bullshit. I've nothing to say. I just like making boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 GWB has proven to be a lying piece of scat! He damn well knew there were no WMD..it was and is all about $$$$, business contracts, etc. IMO. He can't stop doing it. The most recent example being 'the entire Iraqi Press Corp was humiliated'. It's spin designed for domestic consumption. He would have been much further ahead if he'd said 'some Iraqi journalists were embarrassed' which is closer to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 I want the shoe that was thrown! It will sell on eBay for $1M USD!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 He was abused. Yet again you prove how stupid you are... You don't know that. Yet again you prove how stupid you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchapstick Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 LIE! FALSE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 I've seen the massive protests to release the shoe thrower in the streets and the support throughout the middle east. Its not about him, its about the U.S. I'm sure they all thought generally speaking it was a very impolite and improper thing to do but it was directed at Bush so its okay. It just goes to emphasize how hated we are that there is nothing that they won't excuse when its directed against us. Lets leave them to themselves. On a related note about Iraq. former Bush strategist Karl Rove said on Tuesday evening that had the President known Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, the United States would not have gone to war. and this Back in December 2005, however, Bush did just that, declaring the WMD issue effectively irrelevant when he said that, "knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision." "So, if you had had this -- if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?" Fox News' Brit Hume asked. "Absolutely," replied Bush. The problem of course is that wasn't presented to the people when he sought the okay. Representatives of both parties have talked out of their asses at times. Its politics. However, you'd think on the important stuff where lives are being asked to be sacreficed, the President would be more forthright. This is no different than Johnson's Gulf of Tomkin lie. The reaction of conseravtives like RY to support the lie and the aftermath has alienated those voters like myself who are independent and will consider either party equally. We are mislead into believing the intelligence was faulty, I find that hard to believe. If you remeber before the invasion, Iraq was one of the most if not number one place watched. If the Iraqis did anything, the USA fighter planes would leave the no-fly airspace and blow it to kingdom come. The intelligence was not faulty, there was no intelligence regarding WMD and the administration knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngfarang Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Im a senior to answer your question. Where do you get your info the bush administration never recieved any info on WMDs? Or were you simply stating your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Im a senior to answer your question. Where do you get your info the bush administration never recieved any info on WMDs? Or were you simply stating your opinion? Reread what I said. I said "The intelligence was not faulty, there was no intelligence regarding WMD and the administration knew it." Which means the administration had a lot of intelligence in tht area and they knew there was no WMDs because their intelligence said so. The administration tried making issues over yellow cake uranium which to the uninformed brought forth fear, but the UN inspectors already noted that Iraq had yellow cake uranium. Then false info was leaked out claiming that Iraq was trying to by yellow cake uranium in Africa. Before the war, the yellow cake uranium was worth, I believe, about $4.00 - $5.00 a pound! The yellow cake uranium was far from being a weapon of mass destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngfarang Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 How can you possibly know what the Bush administration recieved about the WMDs. Your "conspiracy theory" has no facts to support it, thus it being called a "conspiracy theory". Show me what Bush recieved. Betcha can't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 How can you possibly know what the Bush administration recieved about the WMDs. Your "conspiracy theory" has no facts to support it, thus it being called a "conspiracy theory". Show me what Bush recieved. Betcha can't! I betcha you can't produce what Bush received also. youngfarang this is a dying argument you have had with various board members. I believe it was Mekong that finally settled the issue when, I believe, said the CIA issued a statement that there wasn't any WMDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.