The America Haters Strike Again »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 4 months ago730 CommentsReflectReport this Story
For them, the military IS America. War is America. The president is America. The NSA is America. Every politician that they love and worship is America. And, if you don't like it, you obviously hate America. You must be some kind of terrorist, or communist; and you'd rather be living in some foreign dictatorship.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 730
-
0%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
so WHO loves oAmerica, the people who love war and love the power that the president has exercised, or the people who love liberty first and foremost?
i vote for the latter.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Actually those are the same. And they are not DemLibs. Demlibs are for the msot part America haters and traitors....
Reply-
0%
kctrixter1 year, 4 months ago
You sir hate a large portion of the people who make up America, if that's not anti American I don't know what is. You have no tolerance for anyone who does not share you opinion, America is built on the notion that people have a right to their own opinion and a right to express it, if you don't believe this, you are anti American.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Don't hate them Just telling it like it is. I agree that everyone has a right to an opinion and the right to express it up to the point where doing so results in giving aid, comfort or encouragment to the enemy during time of war....then it is sedition or treason....
Reply-
50%
lfergie8121 year, 4 months ago
Look in the mirror and you will see the enemy. It's not the people of America that wants this war ended, it is the people that want this war to continue to create more hate and divide this country.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Actually it is the people on the left who have been against the US in this war since day two or three. It probably would have ended already and the troop would have been home except for the massive support given to the enmy by leftists in the US starting with Wolf Blitzer and Tom Brokaw and the rest of the leftist press and continuing with insane Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the far left radical nutcases and the NY Times giving aid, comfort and encourageement to the enemy....
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 4 months ago
Here again you are confused. The people on the left as you call it were behind the president 100% when he went into Afghanistan to seek and destroy the enemy. The problem started when the president took on a personal war against Saddam that the "left" opposed. There was no justification to attack Iraq in 2003 because he was under control and NEVER had anything to do with the WTC.
Reply-
0%
paradoxsee1 year, 4 months ago
Good post Ifergie- all our countrymen(demlibs,left radical nutcases,etc) and the entire civilized world were on our side after 911 to attack those responsible in Afghanistan and destroy OBL & Al Quaida forever, but then a blunder into Iraq and "bring it on", fight terrorism in some other poor country with no terrorist ties changed all that. "We don't care about OBL anymore, if you don't agree you are giving aid & comfort to terrorists, we will give you security in exchange for some of your freedoms, BS ad nauseum." No more American lives for nation building- if Iraqi's don't care about each other and their country, we leave and protect the oil fields and watch the dummies do their power struggle. If a terrorist state emerges, we reappear and bomb every little thing to bits with our billions, do not rebuild, and then the terrorists have a "safe haven" of nothing but rubble. They can really operate their global network then.
Reply -
100%
DanmLiberals1 year, 4 months ago
Fergie.... First off, many Democrats in congress voted to take force full action against Saddam if he didn't allow inspectors into Iraq. The "LEft" didnt oppose it. Im sure there were a few that did and Im sure there were a few that opposed going into Afghanistan. But let me ask you something? With our previous sanctioning of the "people" in Iraq, is that any better than what's going on now? Hundreds of thousands of people died because of those sanctions. What about them? YOu can't have it both ways.
Reply-
20%
traveler20001 year, 4 months ago
I guess there are several reasons people from the "left" (what's in a word?)voted for:
First,the Americans in general are very patriotic, and "behind their leader" in times of crisis.(this is not a critic, we should be more sometimes in our countries)
Secondly, the info given in the US was extremely one-sided and bias(to the war)
The US and its people were still in shock by 9/11 (and kept in shock and FEAR by the governm)
I was on vacation in the US,just before the 2nd golf war. As I said before, had I not received other, more nuanced info in my country, I wld've said "what are we waiting for? We have to attack NOW. It's going to be to late..."
The government did LIE to it's people, but a lot of (most) people, including in "both Houses" believed the president(remember the gulf of Tonkin lie).It is for patriotic people a normal reflex to do that.
More people now however realize that they were lied to. However, there is no easy way out...
Reply-
0%
donald511 year, 4 months ago
Libs, time and time again you keep giving us these '98 quotes when the comments were valid, and the UN teams in fact saw the destruction of Sadam's last WMD shortly thereafter. So why do you continue to use 5 year old quotes to justify Dubya's actions in 2003? You really do need psychological help!
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
Then why did the UN find Saddam in "Material Breach" as in Resolution 1441?
While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.
Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account.
Hans Blix 1/27/2003
Reply
-
-
-
0%
traveler20001 year, 4 months ago
However, when the UN inspection restarted, under the leadership of Has Blix, nothing could be found.
The US government however prefered to ignore the findings of the inspectors.
Yes, not all documentation could (yet, at that point) be found in Iraq or provided by Iraq, concerning past material. However, even Blix said the Iraqis were very cooperrative. The missing documentation could, according to the inspectors themself, be explained by the disorganised workingmethodes of the Iraqis.
Blix wrote in his book (about the un inspection in Iraq) how his conversations with e.g. Condoleezza Rice, were disformed (by her) the next day in the newspapers, putting accent on what was not totaly clear yet, and not talking about the positive actions by Iraq, nor the optimistic views of the inspectors.
In short, the US government wanted to go to war and dismissed all evidence that was leading against war.
Reply-
0%
donald511 year, 4 months ago
Which opened the door for Doug Fieth's special access program in the Pentagon to recycle already CIA-debunked intelligence back to Cheney and Dubya. The same BS that Colin Powell presented to the UN and even Colin now admits were lies!
Reply -
0%
dunkirk1 year, 4 months ago
What is interesting is if you believe the Admin assertion it was misled we then have a clerk at the CIA determining policy for the US. This is a very disturbing constant that seems to pervade any and all fiascos with this administration. If its true it means the govt is pretty much out of control under Bush.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
dunkirk1 year, 4 months ago
Yes and he let the inspectors into Iraq. in fact he cooperated with them allow them to go where they wanted. It seems they started reporting NO WMD and NO projects to recosntitute them. Bush ordered the inspectors out just prior to his invasion. Seems he felt it neccessary to act before his excuse for the invasion completely fell apart.
Reply
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
Is this what you mean when you state "He was under control"?
For four consecutive years funding for Southern Watch and related operations has been provided through a request for supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense. The requirement for supplemental funds in 1998 was due to the substantial movement of forces to the Persian Gulf region from November 1997-March 1998 in response to Iraq's refusal to comply with United Nations' mandates regarding arms inspections. In April 1998 the Congress appropriated $1,312,400,000 for operations in Southwest Asia as part of the Emergency SupplementalAppropriations Act.
By early 2001 pilots had entered the southern "no-fly" zone in Iraq 153,000 times since 1992. Not one pilot has been lost. Between February 2000 and February 2001 allied pilots entered the zone 10,000 times. On 500 occasions, the Iraqis fixed radar on the jets or engaged them with anti-aircraft weapons.
Reply-
100%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
Sustaining the no-fly zones is a costly exercise. The US bill for the southern zone alone in the fiscal year that ended in September 2000 was $1.4 billion. What does the Pentagon claim to achieve with this massive expenditure? As with previous US-UK attacks in the no-fly zones, the immediate rationale for the February 16 raid was "self-defense" -- a response to anti-aircraft fire, or to Iraqi radar "locking on" to US-UK planes. But the rhetoric surrounding the zones still reiterates the formulas used to justify them since 1991. These formulas hold that no-fly zones protect civilian populations -- Kurds in the north and Shi'a in the south -- and that they are part of an international policy of "containing Iraq" and protecting its neighbors from attack. But the actual history of these zones displays a considerable gap between publicly declared purposes and real intentions.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
11-17-04
NEW YORK -- Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel, say congressional investigators who uncovered evidence of the money trail.
The former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families up to $25,000 each.
Mahmoud Safi, leader of a pro-Iraqi Palestinian group, the Arab Liberation Front, acknowledged that the support payments for relatives make it easier for some potential bombers to make up their minds. "Some people stop me on the street, saying if you increase the payment to $50,000 I'll do it immediately," Safi said.
Saddam said the Palestinians need weapons and money instead of peace proposals and has provided payments.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
lfergie81: no justification to attack Iraq in 2003...
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Reply-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Apparently, the cruise missile strikes against Iraq back in December 1998 were supposed to be so powerful, so as to oust Saddam Hussien(dare I suggest the term "regime change" as being appropriate here?)
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
So I conclude that as a result of the cruise missile attacks launched on Iraq by order of former President Bill Clinton back in December 1998, that the result of said attacks should have resulted in 1) a serious disabling of Iraq's WMD and nuclear weapons systems and 2) regime change.
Well, in hindsight, we know regime change didn't happen, but just how were we supposed to know for sure whether or not four days of bombing in December 1998 seriously disabled Saddam's capability for using his WMD and nuclear programs/arsenals to attack his neighbors, or anywhere in the world ?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
saeth221 year, 4 months ago
King - your quotes are getting boring. Can't you find any current quotes by these same people on the same subject? Facts have changed since 2002. Give it a rest, because intelligent people aren't buying it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
kctrixter1 year, 4 months ago
Actually if we had pursued the sanctions till we really has afghanistan secured we would have had the troops to insure a decisive victory like we had in Kuwait, we sent 500.000 troops to secure Kuwait, (a war where the enemy was open in the desert) a country what 1/2, 1/4 the size of Iraq yet we sent 230,000 troops to secure a country the size of Iraq which involved gorilla/urban combat, which by military standards you should have 4x the amount of troops then in a conventual war like we fought in Kuwait. we blew it from the beginning not that Bush had not been advised of that, he just chose to get rid of the people that knew what they were talking about and go with the people who would just go along with what he thought. They will all just line up to worship us for saving them, and immediately become a democratic republic just like us, should only take a couple of months
Reply-
100%
rimbaud1 year, 4 months ago
There's always this myth that we are not doing all we can to win the war... that we should "take the gloves off". We ARE doing all we can! We are fighting a war against an enemy that won't fight back. When we go on the offensive: they fade away, to live to fight another day, and we can't recognize them, unless they are shooting back.
What's this BS about needing to train the Iraqis? They have been holding off the world's greatest military force for years.
Maybe the lesson is: if you are unable to use overwhelming force against your enemy, you are not in a war, but stuck in something else. Our troops need to get out immediately after "mission accomplished", and the political dancing begins.
Reply -
0%
traveler20001 year, 4 months ago
I did give a positive vote, because it is right what you're saying about troupnumbers and "not accepting advice from people who knew better".
However, the war itself was wrong from the beginning:
Wrong intel (only bias intel, in favor of war accepted and made public), wrong raesons, wrong policy (for after the war), wrong equipment, no international support......
Most people overhere said, as soon the war started, it will NOT be that easy. The result will probably be worse then before. Of course, we did receive more (plural-sided) info.
We also looked (because of the info we got)at history and background of the problems.
Reply -
100%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
As we are aware the initial combat operations were over quickly. The ongoing process is to stabilize a country that has been racked by 40 years of an oppressive government regime. The violence in Iraq appears to be perpetrated by a minority of the population along with a infusion of outside Islamic militant groups such as Al Quada, Islamic Jihad, and other such groups. 60% of the population participated in the last election, indicating that many want to participate in peaceful resolution to domestic issues.
3-27-2007
The U.S. command said one of the car-bombers captured last week, Haitham al-Shimari, was suspected in the "planning and execution of the majority of car bombs which have killed hundreds of Iraqi citizens in Sadr City," a Shiite enclave of Baghdad. Another, identified as Haidar al-Jafar, was second-in-command of a cell that killed some 900 Iraqis and wounded almost 2,000, the military said. Three other men believed connected to that cell also were in custody.
Reply-
100%
traveler20001 year, 4 months ago
...The U.S. command said one of the car-bombers captured last week, Haitham al-Shimari, was suspected in the "planning and execution of the majority of car bombs which have killed hundreds of Iraqi citizens in Sadr City,...
yes, indeed. And the guys who executed 9/11 where mostly Saudies...???....
And, while ALL flights in the US where forbiden, all important Saudies were allowed to leave the US, by plane, whithout questionning......
The fact is, there was no terrorisme under Sadam.
There have never been any Iraqi terrorist anywhere in the world under Sadam. This can not be said of Saudi Arabia.
For long he was a friend of the west (Europe AND US)
Yes, he was a dictator, leading a dictatorship.
So is the Saudi government, the Egyptian government, the Algerian, the .................
What would happen if they became REALY democratic????
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
You are kidding right. Example #1
Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. He lived as a free man for a year, but the authorities in Iraq tell CBS News they put him in prison in 1994. After 9/11, President Bush put Yasin on a new most wanted list, with a $25 million reward.
ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1992, Ramzi Yousef arrived at JFK airport. He presented an Iraqi passport without a U.S. visa, was briefly detained (and fingerprinted) for illegal entry, and granted asylum pending a hearing. Yousef went to stay at the apartment of Musab Yasin, an Iraqi living in Jersey City. So too did Abdul Rahman Yasin, Musab's younger brother, who arrived in America from Iraq soon after Yousef...Salameh made the first of forty-six calls to Iraq, the vast majority to his terrorist uncle in Baghdad.
Reply -
-
100%
traveler20001 year, 4 months ago
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did conclude:
"that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq". Those were also the findings of the DIA and CIA.
The information given for the so called "terrorist training camps" came from very biased sources: Iraqi defectors, associated with the "Iraqi National Congres" (opposed to Sadam. They did gave a lot of false evidence on a lot of matters to give the US a reason to invade.
Only gathering, and accepting, evidence from someone's enemy is not good policy to find the truth.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton):
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
- 105th Congress, 2nd Session, September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/...
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
February 13, 2002
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F1...
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Saddam regime's publicly-documented collaboration with Islamic terrorists:
His offer of $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber and every Palestinian family made homeless by the Israeli assault last month on a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin has won wide admiration at home and in the larger Arab world.
Time Magazine
May 6, 2002
Inside Saddam's world
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/time....
Reply -
0%
dwemm1 year, 4 months ago
And all of these opinions you quote, while true, were based on evidence that was fabricated by the White House. Time and time again both Bush and Cheney have repeated that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The source for the WMD argument was long ago discredited.
And Congress let itself be stampeded both by the White House (who needed to pull Halliburton's bacon out of the fiscal fire) and the American people (who were terrified by the threat level from the government that should have been protecting them). They left their best judgment at home and let themselves be controlled by what would get them re-elected.
The world's worst tragedies don't come out of unified conspiracies, they come out of people reacting in self-interest when they should act in the interest of others.
Reply
-
-
100%
JustCallMeV1 year, 4 months ago
KCTrixter: That is a great comment and very true. I am not to sure about the "line up to worship us" part, but the occupation certainly would have gone smoother.
-V-
Reply
-
100%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
King of nonsense,
I was against the Iraq invasion before it begain and told people what would happen if Bush chose to invade Iraq rather than completing the job in Afghanistan and improving relations and dialogue in the region and I was correct. This means that you and those like you are wrong.
You are either delusional or just stupid and serve no beneficial function to our republic. You should just shut up and start paying attention to what others have to say and not to just what your ideologues say. But even this small suggestion assumes that you have critical thought capabilities and I really doubt that.
Reply-
100%
archeojoel1 year, 4 months ago
HERE HERE!!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Especially the critical thought comment. Seems the King of Lies is exactly the kind of person being talked about in the article. As I've said a bazillion times:
"those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." (paraphrased quote from Ben Franklin--remember him? I guess he is the ultimate "anti-american.")
Reply-
0%
Vandreigan1 year, 4 months ago
"Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither, and lose both."
Although I disagree with the mentality that just because someone famous said it, it is true, I do like that quote.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
LordyLordy1 year, 4 months ago
Anyone who shows up at the funeral of one of our fallen soldiers and heroes, deserves to be tar and feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Cindy Sheehan is being used and conned by the far left wing wackos and doesn't even realize it, which I guess makes her one of those converts to becoming a wacko. Take a seat next to Jane Fonda. You'll be her welcome guest.
Reply-
0%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
She's not being used. She doesn't agree with Bush and his use of lies to get people like yourself to support his adventure at the cost of her son's and others' lives. You and the rest of your ilk should just start shutting up and keeping your stupid opinions to yourselves. It is precisely because of fools like you that we are in the situation we are in today.
Because you obviously hate how our republic functions, as evidenced by your hatred of other opinions, why not move to an authoritarian state because we don't want one here. I think it would be fun to tar and feather you on your way out.
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
She's been an anti war loud moth unstable moron for many years. That's why her son joined the Army. To get away from her.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
FSU92grad1 year, 4 months ago
lfergie812,
No...We can see past our eyelashes and realize the importance of WINNING this war...Not you and many other liberals and their wish for our troops to fail and accept defeat..."Neo-cons" aren't prowar, they're pro WINNING the war...
Liberals are losers and believe that if we come home, things will somehow magically disappear..We come home, the terrorist will follow. We'll fight them eventually either way, whether its here in American or over there in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria...
Reply-
0%
dwemm1 year, 4 months ago
Since the Neocons were so interested in winning at any cost, why are they here in the US while sending the state National Guard soldiers, sailors and pilots to do their dirty work?
I frequently see posts saying that liberals should leave the country. Why don't you enlist and put yourself in danger, or are you just willing to call names?
Reply -
0%
johnkamis641 year, 4 months ago
Last time I saw this much BS was my last trip to a fertilizer store. Mark Twain said one should support thier country all of the time, and ones government when they deserve it.
This has reeked from the beginning of partisan politics; issued from "chickenhawks" (the military calls them REMFs)
who have never been in service, let alone combat!!!
Start with the cherry-picking of intel,fabrication of links between Saddam and 9/11, ignoring intel from other countries showing that the sources upon which Bushco was relying were lying, sending underequipped troops to combat, outlawing family support(sending carepackages of body armor) so 'politically supportive' vendors could capitalize on the scarcity,Rumsfeld and Cheney micromanaging the conflict, Abu Gharaib, and the constant barrage of lies .Now let's talk about treason; when Joe Wilson was sent to Africa to check on rumors(Based on forged documents!!) that Niger was selling Uranium to Saddam, the Bush regime stifled his report...
Reply -
0%
pismo1 year, 4 months ago
Hey FSU tell your momma I said hi and I'm looking forward to our next date!
Reply
-
-
-
100%
HannibalBarca1 year, 4 months ago
Look into the history of WWii.N.Amerian industry was doing buisness with Axis powers through out the conflict,one of them was grandpa Prescott Bush but that is a different can of worms.The founding of your great nation was because people rebelled against a corrupt goverment,Treason as you call it is not necessarily against what your founding fathers devised but what is now being done in the name of democracy but for a profit.
Reply -
0%
LordyLordy1 year, 4 months ago
Very well said KingofTruth. Exercising your right to the freedom of speech is an American fundamental right; however, when you are giving encouragement to the enemy during a time of war, it is tantamount to treason. You, whether you believe it or not, are aiding your enemy. I rather fondly remember the Viet Nam war and Jane Fonda appearing for photo ops on the top of North Vietnamese big gun, the same gun that probably killed hundreds of our soldiers, smiling, laughing.
Yes, look in the mirror. You are the enemy if you're debating this war while your soldiers are on the ground. If you so strongly believe in peace, get yourself a plane ticket over there, see for the real what is actually going on, not the public press BS and SPIN. Most of those complaining haven't the guts to do that, and I'm not a Demoract nor a Republican, just an American who will support my soldiers while in the field. They are our heroes and about that there is no debate whatsoever.
Reply-
0%
LordyLordy1 year, 4 months ago
Most of these complaining about Bush and the Iraq and Afghanistan war are what I call "yellow", and the colors of our flag are red, white, and blue....and those colors don't run! I thank God at least Bush knows who the enemy is. While I don't agree with everything he's done, knowing mistakes are made, at least he isn't afraid to do what has to be done, sooner or later.
They sailed the USS Nimitz into the waters yesterday, while all the dipolomacy and talk the British and the U.N. were doing with Iran, which they ignored. As soon as Iran saw our aircraft carrier and a host of other vessels with it, they released the British sailors, apologized to them, gave them gifts and sent them home. The last thing we need is a wimpy coward in the White House. I don't care if the President is Democrat or Republican or Independent, but the President has to have guts. At least this one does.
Reply-
-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Actually invading was not a mistake. Letting leftist press embed with us was. Letting Wolf Blitzer be eyes and a voice for Saddam on ak Jazeera was. Not putting an immediate stop to all leftist reporters, newspapers and other press outlets who were aiding the enemy was a mistake.
Reply
-
-
0%
IcCaRus1 year, 4 months ago
with regard to the Duh-cider, what some call "guts," others call being too dim-witted, arrogant, and stubborn to see, admit to, and corect a colossal mistake.
regarding presidents in general, yes, "guts" are good. ragarding your brainless, er fearless leader, some intelligence would also be a welcome addition.
Reply
-
-
0%
BruiserTom1 year, 4 months ago
" Yes, look in the mirror. You are the enemy if you're debating this war while your soldiers are on the ground."
It seems to me that you are the enemy if you support sending your soldiers to fight and die in a war that should never have been fought in the first place. If the soldiers are needed elsewhere and you send them to die where they are not needed, then you have handed your country's enemies a strategic victory that they could not have possibly accomplished on their own.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Johnthe11 year, 4 months ago
Kctrixter:
You have no tolerance for anyone who does not share you opinion, America is built on the notion that people have a right to their own opinion and a right to express it, if you don't believe this, you are anti American.... Well said and I fully agree.
Those who want to shut out the opposition are communists at heart.
Freedom of speech, freedom to ask questions, freedom to search for the truth, freedom to disagree with the administration, freedom to oppose the war, freedom, freedom, freedom. Anyone opposing these is anti-American and they should leave the country.
We need to end the spewing of propaganda from the news networks. When individuals begin questioning, then and only then do they start thinking for themselves, voice there opposition/opinion for or against with no threats then they will truly become Americans.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
"people have a right to their own opinion and a right to express it" This much is true. The person speaking is also responsible for the Consequences of their words.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
You see how they project what they want to believe, who loves war, no one, but do they realize you can hate war, but think at times it's necessary, no. Because their talking points for so long have told them to believe if you support the President, you hate freedom of speech, you hate freedom, and you love war. The dumbing, and liberalization, of America continues.
Reply-
71%
lfergie8121 year, 4 months ago
"you can hate war, but think at times it's necessary, no"
There's where you're wrong. Sometimes war is necessary as the case with Afghanistan. The problem is that you cons don't get it.
Is there anyone opposed to the other war in Afghanistan?
No because it was necessary to go there to find our enemy that attacked this country.
Was it necessary to attack Iraq?
No because they had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC and was no threat to us.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
The problem you make is calling it the other war in Afghanistan.....it is all part of the same war on terror....and no one, except Dems, have ever claimed that the WTC was connected to Iraq (although it was at Salman pak)....btw....Serbia was also no threat to us and Clinton attacked them(illegally) and we still have troops there....
Reply-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 4 months ago
There again you are wrong. The war in Afghanistan was approved by congress with the Authorization for Use of Military Force September 18, 2001
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres...
The Authorization for Use of Military Force of October 2,2002 was to use force in Iraq IF necessary.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10...
".Serbia was also no threat to us and Clinton attacked them(illegally) and we still have troops there...."
Serbia was a joint UN effort to stop genocide.
"The U.N. resolution was put into effect after Serbian leadership in Bosnia refused to accept a U.N.-sponsored peace plan."
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N24/serbia.24w.html
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
The UN never gave approvals to NATO to strike in Bosnia, Serbia or Yugoslovia. It was a NATO operation not UN.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kosovo-timeline1...
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 4 months ago
Your link only gives infromation on what NATO did but the last time I checked, we are a member of NATO. The quote I gave was from the link I gave and it says the UN was there.
Here's another that has NATO providing air protection for the UN peacekeepers on the ground. NATO and the UN were working together.
http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/07/29/bosnia_1...
Reply
-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
lfergie812: Serbia was to stop genocide...
It turns out that the ICC has ruled that Serbia was not involved in the genocide, if there even was one, so the Clinton bombings and the rest was a war crime....as far as most reliable reports have proven, the so called massacre was not one. It was a mass grave made up by the Muslims to show to the leftists press to get them to cry genocide....and no resolution or authroeization was ever made by the US Congress...so that was definitely an illegal use of troops...the authorization to use troops in Iraq was done legally as was sending the troops....."Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer."..
Reply
-
-
0%
tdash1 year, 4 months ago
Since you criticize the US military involvement in Serbia, you are an America-hating traitor who should hang!! Who are YOU to question your country's leaders?
Stop trying to have it both ways. Don't accuse people of hating America simply because they don't like your hero GWB. By the same logic, you must have hated America even more during Clinton's years.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
