🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 27, 3:13 am, bushlyed <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 12:20 am, The Nice Mean Man <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 9:27 am, "Chris" <vscooternos...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Killing a killer does not make us murderers anymore than shooting someone in
> > > self defense does. We are killing him before he can kill one of us again. As
> > > for life in prison.....why the hell should we pay to support this piece of
> > > shit for the rest of his life. I can think of much better things to do with
> > > my money.
> > > And before you ask.....I am pro choice,pro gun,anti-illegal immigration,
> > > anti-bush and anti-stupidity in general.....funny thing is though I am not a
> > > republican.
>
> > > "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f265774e-0b54-49fd-982d-640285e8b2a2@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Nov 24, 11:47 pm, "ChairMan" <w...@fu.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Innews:hj1li45vn8vmohq6fms11aedkbpii775p4@4ax.com,
> > > > Pops Mear <PopsM...@here.usa>spewed forth:
>
> > > > > Expect a delay past Obama's Inauguration...Mission Accomplished
> > > > > Bushie.
>
> > > > Is your name juanita or sandra?
> > > > Are you really this stupid?
> > > > Why is it that your kind don't have a problem killing a baby
>
> > > Please don't use the ridiculous and absurd "killing a baby" argument
>
> > > I have never killed a baby nor have most of the people you rant
> > > against
>
> > > Now if you are talking about a woman's right to choose what to when
> > > faced with an unwanted pregnancy, what is it your business
>
> > > Regarding this guy, he is obviously a loser and a murderer but when we
> > > execute him, we become murderers too
>
> > > Life in prison is truly punishment enough
>
> > > And I find it quite interesting that those of you who are anti-
> > > abortion and say you are pro-life backed this war in Iraq...
>
> > Ahh, ahh, ahhhhh! The enemy is doing that!
>
> > > that killed
> > > tens of thousands of innocent people and made millions refugees.
>
> > >  How
> > > is that pro-life?
>
> > Yes, but Saddam was murdering them but the HUNDREDS of thousands.
> > Quite possibly the millions. And you know this, too. That is why I
> > have a hard time understanding how those on the left, who are
> > supposedly so up for human rights, find it difficult in not impossible
> > to support their nation when it comes to actually getting it done.
>

> Because of the motivation of the your illustrious hero.  His invasion
> of Iraq had nothing, nada, zilch, zero about human rights. It was
> about oil, oil, oil, oil, OIL and about revenge against Saddam.
>

So... where IS the oil, oil, oil, OIL????

See... you might FEEL that way, but you can’t PROVE a thing.


> But all they have to do to you people is wave a boogeyman like Saddam
> to get you war mongers to salivate.
>


YOU people...? Who are YOU people? You mean THESE 'YOU' people...??



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-
range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


http://brentroos.com/2006/05/09/what-did-the-democrats-say-about-iraq...


Snopes backs all those quotes up, BTW.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp


So.... is it still about oil, oil, oil, OIL?? Because if it is, you'll
have to prove that each and every statement show above is a FAKE. Bet
you can't do that.



> Now, there is genocide around the world, why are you guys not
> clamoring for us to do something.
>

Do something? We WERE 'doing something' until you dreamers went to the
polls.



> > does it always work that way…? . I guess it’s the old adage… Democrat
> > bombs good; Republican bombs bad. More rotten turn-and-look-the-other-
> > way liberal hypocrisy. And another hallmark of their so-called
> > integrity.
>
> No, it is your hyporcisy.
>

Really...? Then how so? You supported this guy, didn’t you?

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
President CLINTON: "Good evening.
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."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton...


> And remember, it was the Republicans during
> the eighties that supported and supplied Saddam and helped make him
> the monster that he was.
>

But he wasn't a monster then. And remember.. It was a failed democrat
president by the name of Jimmy Carter who let this whole thing blossom
into what it is to begin with. He was a pussy-assed coward who had no
business running a peanut farm let alone a country.

> > The other thing that those apposed to the war are doing is the same
> > thing that they did by the Vietnam war..
>
> Vietnam war?  Interfering in the internal affairs of another nation.
>

Yes indeed. A nation that was already divided by a civil war. And the
spread of communism was deemed a very real threat back in those days.
One worthy to go to war for. And remember... Kennedy, a democrat, was
the first to send actual fighting troops, and Johnson, another
democrat, escalated it sky-high. I always thought is as a miracle that
Nixon got us out after only two terms. Thank God for Republicans. I
mean… where would you democrats be without us?

> After dividing a country that should not have been divided, we
> supported a dictatorship.
>

Like always! Don’t you understand how American foreign policy works?
How old are you…? Ten?  It's always been that way and it's also
totally bi-partisan. Just like it always will be. Always and
forevermore. You'll see....

> > They are insuring a black
> > mark on the history of America. You are actually changing history to
> > an animal of your own choosing. And in the end, you will have created
> > hundreds of thousands of ex-GIs who ‘aren’t sure’ if what they did was
> > right or not. When they had to kill, butcher, burn and maim or be
> > fucking killed, butchered, burned or maimed. You people.... You're a
> > frigging DISEASE. Too bad you’re so contagious.
>
> What we did in Vietnam was not right.
>

I agree.. Thought so then. Still think so today. But Iraq is not
Vietnam, my friend. And don’t think it is, just because you happen to
hate your president for winning the 2000 election the way he did.

> We napalmed people, we dropped
> more bombs there than we did in WWII, we killed millions of people.
>

War is war, you know. I'm sure that the bad guys wouldn't have come
out in the open if we would have asked them to.  Even if we had asked
them nice.
 But since we obviously support free elections, I’ll have to leave the
outcome of that one to you nutty-assed people.


> For opposing the Vietnam war, we are a disease.
>

No. For opposing the Iraqi war, you are a disease. I just used Vietnam
as an illustrator for the kind of SHIT that you're going to needlessly
permeate our troops with. That's all.


> You sir are a fucking
> warmongering moron who doesn't understand history.
>

LOL..!!  Bet I’m older than you. Go off and contemplate your frigging
navel some more. Then come back and talk to me when you begin to
understand that it isn’t the center of the entire universe after all.


> You are truly a
> fucking idiot and the only disease is in your warped brain.
>
> Vietnam is a black mark on the history of America.  As was the
> overthrow of the governments of Iran and Chile and the Spanish-
> American war and Mexica war which was for the seizure of territory
> only.
> Yours sir is not a world view and your myopia is startling.- Hide quoted text -
>

It looks like it is YOU who need to go back to history class. All of
those nations originally got what we eventually took by warring. I
don't understand... This is the way the world... the entire world.....
works. But you're from Pepperland, I see. No wonder you hate your
country (and consequently yourself) so much.







The Nice Mean Man