My comment was directed towards the Democratic candidates and how I foresee them switching sides again and supporting an agency that they have just ridiculed concerning 16 words in the SOTU address, because now it serves their needs.
Now, do you care to explain what you meant or were you just being yourself, blowing smoke out your @ss again with your comment about Bush, and, as usual, have nothing of substance to offer?
SmallTown
Football season!
Yes, I'm aware of your comments and how they were directed, too bad you can not understand the same with my posts
Take out your Fox News IV and maybe you'll begin to see the light.With Bush: The nigerian claims, the closeness of iraq to obtaining nukes and launching an attack, etc... Take your pick.
As for clinton doing the same, well, even a democrat would have a hard time getting around that subject.
First off, I don’t have a Fox IV. I mix it up with Fox getting less then an hour a day, if that much. But since you made the insinuation, I would like to offer one back at you. Maybe you should drop your Washington Post, New York Times, and DU enema bags as they seem to have you overflowing with your typical sh!t. Your previous post was simply a slap at Bush. It’s all you know how to do. I’ve been watching you do it since you first showed up. All you ever do is hide in the shadows and flail.Originally posted by SmallTown
Yes, I'm aware of your comments and how they were directed, too bad you can not understand the same with my posts
With Bush: The nigerian claims, the closeness of iraq to obtaining nukes and launching an attack, etc... Take your pick.
As for clinton doing the same, well, even a democrat would have a hard time getting around that subject.
Okay, I'll take my pick. And what are the Nigerian claims? I take it that you are talking about the 16 words from the SOTU? The documents that were used to make the claim concerning obtaining more weapons material have been determined to be fakes. Do we know where the documents originated? Does it matter? Do we have other data supporting the claim that is too sensitive to trust to many of the idiots that would readily leak it? I would say it is likely. Do you honestly think that this was used as a primary reason for going into Iraq? Haven't you payed attention to anything?
You don't think Iraq was close to developing a nuke and didn’t have an active program (not to mention a known stockpile on hand, previously sealed by the IAEA. Hmm, wonder if they found it all before they sealed that site.)? All I can say is that you are either naïve or haven't been paying attention again. Iraq has been interested, maintained development programs and were not that far from getting there. We’ve been watching them with high intensity for awhile now. It just isn't something that is talked about or shared with the public. We know that they can already do a dirty bomb. Hell, those of us on SOMD.com could probably build a dirty bomb with the stuff that you can find on the Internet and our collective skills.
You must think that the Hussein regime wasn’t a threat to our national security and would never assist or orchestrate an attack against our homeland or interests overseas? Even though Hussein certainly made many public threats of that very nature. Would you say for certain that Hussein has not assisted Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group? The rules changed on 9/11 or weren't you paying attention then either?
C
Clare Whitbeck
Guest
Saudi's and 9/11
In order not to hijack the topic of Bush's approval, I have started a new thread. There is more information, this time from the LA Times, about the content of the missing pages in the 9/11 report. I suspect it will take a long time for all the information on this topic to be available. I have included the address of the web site for the LA times so you can read the entire article. Replies are welcome, especially from those who have a different viewpoint than I have.
Clare
In order not to hijack the topic of Bush's approval, I have started a new thread. There is more information, this time from the LA Times, about the content of the missing pages in the 9/11 report. I suspect it will take a long time for all the information on this topic to be available. I have included the address of the web site for the LA times so you can read the entire article. Replies are welcome, especially from those who have a different viewpoint than I have.
Clare
C
Clare Whitbeck
Guest
new thread
OK folks, now there's thread on Iraqi oil, which is not the reason we went to Iraq. Everyone is welcome.
Clare
OK folks, now there's thread on Iraqi oil, which is not the reason we went to Iraq. Everyone is welcome.
Clare
C
Clare Whitbeck
Guest
President's Approval Sags
Hi Everyone,
The latest Poll now shows the Bush approval rating at 45 per cent, less than half of those polled. Here's the link. Clare
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st...163612519.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=20030905CDH104
Hi Everyone,
The latest Poll now shows the Bush approval rating at 45 per cent, less than half of those polled. Here's the link. Clare
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st...163612519.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=20030905CDH104
Re: President's Approval Sags
Now if the President was doing that bad of a job why would they feel this way?
Polls don't mean much to me (except for the poll conducted in November every four years), especially when none of the data or questions are presented only the determined results. Going to the Zogby site and reading the news regarding this poll, I found it amazing when they stated, "Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the likely Democratic primary voters said it is somewhat or very likely that President Bush will be re-elected in November 2004, regardless of how they intend to vote."
Now if the President was doing that bad of a job why would they feel this way?
