Thanks, it's not my style to sit back and poke fun...
I actually would like to attend some of these parties at some point...
President Bush Speech
- Thread starter THE KOD
- Start date
Thanks, it's not my style to sit back and poke fun...
I actually would like to attend some of these parties at some point...
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
4 more Americans killed in Iraq, Bush kept them safe.
4 more Americans killed in Iraq, Bush kept them safe.
Updated at 11:11 p.m. EDT, Sept. 14, 2007
At least 43 Iraqis were killed and 20 more wounded. Among the incidents was a suicide bombing in Baiji that killed or wounded over two dozen people. A roadside bomb killed four GIs in Diyala province today. Three GIs were wounded in combat in Garma; usually, GI injuries do not get reported in the media.
4 more Americans killed in Iraq, Bush kept them safe.
Updated at 11:11 p.m. EDT, Sept. 14, 2007
At least 43 Iraqis were killed and 20 more wounded. Among the incidents was a suicide bombing in Baiji that killed or wounded over two dozen people. A roadside bomb killed four GIs in Diyala province today. Three GIs were wounded in combat in Garma; usually, GI injuries do not get reported in the media.
Read your initial post last night Gregg and was going to ask you what occurred to make you use such a dramatic statement as I did not see speech
either. The above enlightened me somewhat but I have to ask just to be sure--
Is it troop placements that have made you ashamed to be an American or your opinion on the war in general.
Can't really think of anything off hand that would make me embarrassed to be an American--I would say politicians on both sides have done embarrassing things--
Armed forces: China, a nuclear power, has at least 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles and more than 450 intermediate-range and short-range ones.
The People's Liberation Army is the world's largest standing army with 2.5 million troops, but has pledged to trim it by 200,000 starting this year. The People's Armed Police, a paramilitary force, has about 1.3 million personnel.
China has six nuclear submarines, but no aircraft carriers and does not have "blue-water" capability that would allow it to project power far from its shores.
.............................................................
I was pondering the Iraq war some time ago , and I got to thinking what I would have done if I was President.
One of my scecarios would have been engaging China to enter the conflict in Iraq fighting side by side with us.
Lets say they entered the fracus, with 300 thousand of their best troops and all we had to do is take care of them. Feed them, guide them, kill with them.
Every other ally of ours would have been required to send troops or we stop with any further foreign aid. The US Playing hardball . Geez imagine that.
The approaching army would have been massive.
Iran, Syria , Saudi Arabia, would have thought twice about causing trouble for us.
This war would have been over in a year.
The People's Liberation Army is the world's largest standing army with 2.5 million troops, but has pledged to trim it by 200,000 starting this year. The People's Armed Police, a paramilitary force, has about 1.3 million personnel.
China has six nuclear submarines, but no aircraft carriers and does not have "blue-water" capability that would allow it to project power far from its shores.
.............................................................
I was pondering the Iraq war some time ago , and I got to thinking what I would have done if I was President.
One of my scecarios would have been engaging China to enter the conflict in Iraq fighting side by side with us.
Lets say they entered the fracus, with 300 thousand of their best troops and all we had to do is take care of them. Feed them, guide them, kill with them.
Every other ally of ours would have been required to send troops or we stop with any further foreign aid. The US Playing hardball . Geez imagine that.
The approaching army would have been massive.
Iran, Syria , Saudi Arabia, would have thought twice about causing trouble for us.
This war would have been over in a year.
For me personally, I am embarrassed many times when I consider that this country elected a man to lead the country who says outlandish, ridiculous, embarrassing things nearly ever time he approaches a microphone. Although I never voted for the man, he represents me on the world stage. And that is very embarrassing to me as an American. And very frustrating.
Maybe a better way to say it is that I'm embarrassed AS an American, than to BE an American. That I'm usually proud of.
I don't believe his way speaking got any worse in his 2nd term so would say to get re-elected again most were more interested in what he says than how he says it--personally whether it pres or anyone else I would much rather have someone not be that articulate than shove their finger in my face :nono: and lie--but thats just me--
While I have always been against the war in Iraq, that in of itself is not what embarrases me. I am embarrased by the manner in which Bush has continually asked Americans to believe his version of what and why we are in Iraq in the first place.
In his speech he actually called the Iraqis our "allies" as if we have some kind of long standing relationship with their sorry excuse of a government. It is offensive to me when he pretends to actually believe that we are going to somehow tame the various factions in Iraq so that the will someday co-exist in a peaceful and productive society. He even went so far as to say "The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together."
The troop "reductions" that he outlined are a thinly veiled lie as a year from now we will still have as many American troops in Iraq as we did a year ago.
I agree with Chad, I should have stated that I am embarrased AS an American and not to BE an American.
September 17, 2007
Former Mexico pres. calls Bush 'cockiest guy I've ever met'
Fox and Bush, pictured in 2006, appeared to enjoy a warm relationship.
WASHINGTON (CNN) ? The two leaders shared a border for six years, but former Mexico President Vicente Fox gives a tough assessment on President Bush in a new book out next month, according to U.S. News and World Report.
In "Revolution of Hope," set to hit book stores October 4, Fox calls Bush "the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life," and is sharply critical of the president's Iraq policy and his immigration stance, according to the magazine.
Though he describes warm relations with Bush, Fox in the book also calls the president's Spanish skills "grade-school" level and says, "I can't honestly say that I had ever seen George W. Bush getting to the White House."
In addition to Bush, Fox also sounds off on his "close but rocky relationships" with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Russian Presidnet Vladimir Putin and Venezuela President Hugo Ch?vez, according to the books Publisher, Penguin.
Fox served as Mexico's president from 2000-2006.
The autobiography is co-written by Robert Allyn, a Texas-based political consultant who has advised both Fox and Bush.
? CNN Ticker Producer
..................................................................
not Bush , not our Bush :scared
Former Mexico pres. calls Bush 'cockiest guy I've ever met'
Fox and Bush, pictured in 2006, appeared to enjoy a warm relationship.
WASHINGTON (CNN) ? The two leaders shared a border for six years, but former Mexico President Vicente Fox gives a tough assessment on President Bush in a new book out next month, according to U.S. News and World Report.
In "Revolution of Hope," set to hit book stores October 4, Fox calls Bush "the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life," and is sharply critical of the president's Iraq policy and his immigration stance, according to the magazine.
Though he describes warm relations with Bush, Fox in the book also calls the president's Spanish skills "grade-school" level and says, "I can't honestly say that I had ever seen George W. Bush getting to the White House."
In addition to Bush, Fox also sounds off on his "close but rocky relationships" with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Russian Presidnet Vladimir Putin and Venezuela President Hugo Ch?vez, according to the books Publisher, Penguin.
Fox served as Mexico's president from 2000-2006.
The autobiography is co-written by Robert Allyn, a Texas-based political consultant who has advised both Fox and Bush.
? CNN Ticker Producer
..................................................................
not Bush , not our Bush :scared
I watched the two hour Democratic debate the other night and low and behold .
Hillary and Obama now say that troops will still be in Iraq in 2013.....
Geezz how did we know that......
Man they take us Amercicans as some stupid asses.
We can see beyond their lies.
Seriously , I cannot see Hillary as President. That would be the worst thing that could possible happen to the US.
During the debate President Clintons name came up and Hillary says, and I think my husband had a great presidency.
Yeh full of blowjobs and investigations.
But please not Giulinai either.
There is really no one to vote for.
Geez Louise.
Hillary and Obama now say that troops will still be in Iraq in 2013.....
Geezz how did we know that......
Man they take us Amercicans as some stupid asses.
We can see beyond their lies.
Seriously , I cannot see Hillary as President. That would be the worst thing that could possible happen to the US.
During the debate President Clintons name came up and Hillary says, and I think my husband had a great presidency.
Yeh full of blowjobs and investigations.
But please not Giulinai either.
There is really no one to vote for.
Geez Louise.
STORM LAKE, Iowa (CNN) ? At a campaign stop in rural Iowa Saturday Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, said he was stunned by the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, would not commit to having all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by 2013.
In an interview with CNN Dodd said, "The idea that the so-called leading candidates for the Democratic nomination would not say categorically that six or seven years from today?four years after [assuming] the presidency?we would not be out of Iraq I found rather stunning."
Dodd was referring to comments the three made at Wednesday's Democratic debate broadcast on MSNBC. Dodd said when he heard their responses on that stage he could "hardly breathe" because he was "so angry."
When asked if he were to become president and combat troops were still in Iraq, how long it would be until they were out Dodd said, "I want to effectuate that now. I don't want to wait until 2009."
He continued, "But if I'm unable to achieve that?which we ought to be able to do?then I would begin that redeployment process immediately. I'd depend upon my military planners on the timing of it, but they tell me they can move a brigade and a half out each month. So my goal would be, depending upon the level of troops there at that time, to begin that redeployment immediately."
.......................................................
Dodd was stunned when he heard the top 3 Dems say troops still in Iraq until 2013.:142smilie
I was stunned when they pointed at Dodd and said that he pulled in 50 million a year.
How does this guy make that much money ?
In an interview with CNN Dodd said, "The idea that the so-called leading candidates for the Democratic nomination would not say categorically that six or seven years from today?four years after [assuming] the presidency?we would not be out of Iraq I found rather stunning."
Dodd was referring to comments the three made at Wednesday's Democratic debate broadcast on MSNBC. Dodd said when he heard their responses on that stage he could "hardly breathe" because he was "so angry."
When asked if he were to become president and combat troops were still in Iraq, how long it would be until they were out Dodd said, "I want to effectuate that now. I don't want to wait until 2009."
He continued, "But if I'm unable to achieve that?which we ought to be able to do?then I would begin that redeployment process immediately. I'd depend upon my military planners on the timing of it, but they tell me they can move a brigade and a half out each month. So my goal would be, depending upon the level of troops there at that time, to begin that redeployment immediately."
.......................................................
Dodd was stunned when he heard the top 3 Dems say troops still in Iraq until 2013.:142smilie
I was stunned when they pointed at Dodd and said that he pulled in 50 million a year.
How does this guy make that much money ?
(CNN) -- The Iranian parliament on Saturday voted to designate the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Army as terrorist organizations, IRNA, the country's state-run news agency, reported.
The Iranian parliament says the U.S. Army and the CIA are "trained terrorists," IRNA reported.
The CIA and the U.S. Army "trained terrorists and supported terrorism, and they themselves are terrorists," the parliament said, according to IRNA.
The Iranian parliament said the condemnation was based on "known and accepted" standards of terrorism from international regulations, including the U.N. charter.
The parliament said it condemns the "aggressions by the U.S. Army, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan" and calls on the United Nations to "intervene in the global problem of U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret jails in other countries," IRNA reported, quoting a statement from Iranian lawmakers.
The Iranian parliament also decried the CIA's and U.S. Army's involvement in the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, U.S. involvement in the Balkans, Vietnam and the U.S. support of Israel.
Of the condemnation, Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said, "There are some things that don't even deserve comment. This is one."
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said he declined to comment "on non-binding resolutions passed by parliaments in countries with dubious records on human rights, democracy and that are state sponsors of terror."
Washington and U.S. military leaders have long accused Iran of training and equipping insurgents in Iraq. The United States and Iran have not had formal diplomatic relations since 1980 after Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for 444 days.
The Iranian lawmakers' condemnation was in apparent retaliation for the U.S. Senate's resolution Wednesday requesting that the United States designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or Quds Force, as a foreign terrorist organization.
The Senate resolution passed a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the U.N. General Assembly that an agreement reached last month between his country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its disputed nuclear program has, in the Iranian view, settled the matter.
Iran says its nuclear program is necessary for civilian energy production. The United States and other Western nations have accused Tehran of trying to build a nuclear weapon. E-mail to a friend
Journalist Shirzad Bozorgmehr contributed to this report.
.......................................................
this is pretty funny when you think about it.
The Iranian parliament says the U.S. Army and the CIA are "trained terrorists," IRNA reported.
The CIA and the U.S. Army "trained terrorists and supported terrorism, and they themselves are terrorists," the parliament said, according to IRNA.
The Iranian parliament said the condemnation was based on "known and accepted" standards of terrorism from international regulations, including the U.N. charter.
The parliament said it condemns the "aggressions by the U.S. Army, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan" and calls on the United Nations to "intervene in the global problem of U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret jails in other countries," IRNA reported, quoting a statement from Iranian lawmakers.
The Iranian parliament also decried the CIA's and U.S. Army's involvement in the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, U.S. involvement in the Balkans, Vietnam and the U.S. support of Israel.
Of the condemnation, Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said, "There are some things that don't even deserve comment. This is one."
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said he declined to comment "on non-binding resolutions passed by parliaments in countries with dubious records on human rights, democracy and that are state sponsors of terror."
Washington and U.S. military leaders have long accused Iran of training and equipping insurgents in Iraq. The United States and Iran have not had formal diplomatic relations since 1980 after Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for 444 days.
The Iranian lawmakers' condemnation was in apparent retaliation for the U.S. Senate's resolution Wednesday requesting that the United States designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or Quds Force, as a foreign terrorist organization.
The Senate resolution passed a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the U.N. General Assembly that an agreement reached last month between his country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its disputed nuclear program has, in the Iranian view, settled the matter.
Iran says its nuclear program is necessary for civilian energy production. The United States and other Western nations have accused Tehran of trying to build a nuclear weapon. E-mail to a friend
Journalist Shirzad Bozorgmehr contributed to this report.
.......................................................
this is pretty funny when you think about it.
Although his speaking may not have gotten worse (although I'm not sure about that - he certainly is more dismissive and protective now than before), I think the message itself is a continually changing one - maybe the same general theme, but definitely presented in a different manner with a moving target. There's really no way he could present things the same way, since the original themes proved wrong - he and his running mate have both admitted that on more than one occasion. So, it's up to the individual to determine what is the truth and who to believe. I personally think they both have been lying to us since before they took office, and I think most agree with that. I think most people agree that to be in the position as President, one must have lied a time or two or at least modified their personal beliefs and sold out a time or two to get where they are. So, is that the main issue to hold a person to, when everyone assumes they all do it? A conundrum, IMO. Not for me, but for you...I guess it would depend on WHAT a person was lying about...that would be a more important situation, I think.
For me, I would prefer to have someone neither shove their finger in my face NOR lie to me. Not sure the finger is that big a deal to me, but an eternal process of lying, hiding information, signing statements to circumvent laws, "losing" e-mails, avoiding/disregarding existing laws and the Constitution, hiring unqualified cronies for important administrative and government positions, rewarding big oil and energy with unfettered access to creating beneficial legislation as your initial accomplishment, and questionable motivations for taking the country to war are pretty big deals to me. Bigger than lying about an affair and a cigar trick or two. Much bigger.
I've said in retrospect that the Clinton lying thing is problematic for me, and is a reprehensible act. One that I'm sure a majority of men in this country both have done or would do to cover up a tryst like he had. Many would not be in the position, and as President needs to set a better example, especially for kids. But that scenario pales in comparison to what this administration has done - nowhere near the problem with that as I have with the current President - ALL things considered.
Here's one for you...who do you think would fare better if they were running for a third term in the vote - Bill Clinton in 2000 or George Herbert Walker Bush in 2008?
Would depend on if we had any terrorist attack Chad.
Then would depend if they struck again here whether folks would rather we do nothing again or think it prudent to do something.
with all things being equal
I am confident that GW would carry
-investors
-small business owners
--corporations
-military
-farmers
and quite sure Bill would carry
--those dependent on social programs
--blacks
--hispanics
-code pink militia
--unions (to lesser extent--despite forced political contributions)
--movie stars/media
My concensus despite Bill being the only impeached-disbarred-felonious pres in history--if I had to wager I'd probably put my money on him.
My reason-- as in upcoming 2008 election
It's difficlut to overcome a 13 million plus vote spot and still win.(90% of 14.6)
"Black voters cast 12 percent of all the ballots cast in
2004, according to the New York Times? published analysis
of the Edison/Mitofsky exit polls, the principal exit polling
organization during this election. Assuming that CSAE?s
estimate of the final vote turnout numbers is correct, this
would mean that blacks cast approximately 14.6 million
votes."
http://iamsaam.org/userimages/BlackVote.pdf
As I said few months back Chad--you could run Homer Simpson on Dem ticket and get 15 million votes--and I'm serious as I can be.
Then would depend if they struck again here whether folks would rather we do nothing again or think it prudent to do something.
with all things being equal
I am confident that GW would carry
-investors
-small business owners
--corporations
-military
-farmers
and quite sure Bill would carry
--those dependent on social programs
--blacks
--hispanics
-code pink militia
--unions (to lesser extent--despite forced political contributions)
--movie stars/media
My concensus despite Bill being the only impeached-disbarred-felonious pres in history--if I had to wager I'd probably put my money on him.
My reason-- as in upcoming 2008 election
It's difficlut to overcome a 13 million plus vote spot and still win.(90% of 14.6)
"Black voters cast 12 percent of all the ballots cast in
2004, according to the New York Times? published analysis
of the Edison/Mitofsky exit polls, the principal exit polling
organization during this election. Assuming that CSAE?s
estimate of the final vote turnout numbers is correct, this
would mean that blacks cast approximately 14.6 million
votes."
http://iamsaam.org/userimages/BlackVote.pdf
As I said few months back Chad--you could run Homer Simpson on Dem ticket and get 15 million votes--and I'm serious as I can be.
Two things in what you posted that struck me, Wayne...clearly the black folk in your mind are all alike and not capable of a valid vote or decision (gives new meaning to the phrase "We must overcome!!!")...and I would say that there are many similarities between Homer Simpson and the current president. If I had to vote today, not sure I wouldn't vote for Homer over Dubbya. At least Homer can put two sentences together if well written.
How many Bush voters in the past two elections are now smacking their foreheads and saying..."Doh!"
How many Bush voters in the past two elections are now smacking their foreheads and saying..."Doh!"
Chad Not saying they aren't capable of decision--just going by iron clad facts of history.
--and don't expect history to change when you have party that advocates penalizing the responsible to boolster the --its not my fault--segment of the population regardless of race a person is..
--and don't expect history to change when you have party that advocates penalizing the responsible to boolster the --its not my fault--segment of the population regardless of race a person is..
