Flip Flop

Untrue statement in general. You need to go back some and see how I was
defending Bush on going to war with Iraq. I like truth and too many times I
don't see it in arguments. I don't have a problem with Bush charging people
with whatever as long as he can prove it in a court (military or civilian).
I've stated many times I am against the collection of people without any
provication. At this point only one or two people have been charged and we
still don't know if americans are in this group and how many are actually
detained.
My arguement against Bush has always been clear.
UnPatriot Act, Detaining of persons without speedy and fair trails, the
possibility of the unpatriot act II, and what I feel is the wrong direction
the Iraq occupation has taken on.
The drug comment was to point out that George like other people make changes
to their philosophy in various decades.

Ran from VietNam??? Disrepect???
You must think those that spoke up against George about the Iraq war as
traitors then. If a person can't speak their mind and speak out against the
government in what they believe is wrong.
To be honest I have more respect for those that do stand up for what they
believe in even if I disagree, because I know these people are true
patriots. They believe in our government enough to get involved and try and
do something. Not the sloths that sit in their chairs and complain how the
government suck.

Don't know about the Ford, most of those politicians get limo service..

 

Its one dirty trick after another. After all it happened after Cheny
mentioned how he didn't think kerry earned his medals. You throw mud, I
throw mud back. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn't.

That goes both ways. After all when the republicans made an issue out of
the skirt chasing, pot smoking (clinton did that to himself, no republican
help needed), and draft dogding, did they make sure their leader was clean.
It was only after Cheny made the comments on how kerry didn't deserve his
medals that the missing days at George camp came up.
Wait... it's just partisan posturing.
No, just politics as usual.....

 

I believe GW would have done it if he thought he could get away with it.
After all, the bad intel, exaggerated numbers was all done to impress the
UN, not to convince the American people. I believe the majority of
Americans would have supported him anyway. After all 12 years was long
enough to drag out this war.

 

Bush and Chaney have consistenly said that Kerry's vietnam record should not
be an issue. Kerry was asked to make his records available only after Bush
made his. If cheny said that it must not have been a big speech before the
press or I would have heard it. Chaney never served, people who live in
glass houses usually dont throw stones. You got a reference that isnt a
blog? Both he and the prez have made it clear vietnam is not an issue. I
recall bush's service being brought up 4 years ago during the gore campaign
by the demo. They didnt make an issue of missing dates back then, only when
their vietnam war hero is running for office.

I dont recall the VP saying anything like that about those medals, but I
might have missed it. Have you got a reference that is not a blog? FWIW, I
disagreed with the republicans bringing up that skirt chasing, it was all
trash talk as far as I was concerned and turned off many republican voters.
Any talk of impeachment would have been a joke. I clearly backfired and got
the speaker of the house ole newt gstring out of a job for doing worse
things. That was business as usual in DC and would not have gone anywhere
in any of the 50 states if it happened in a statehouse. You can get caught
behind the secretary of state with your pants down and still keep your job
as gov. Of course, that is just a blog report.

I cannot think of anyone better to have i war time than Gen Powell and one
of the bush's to kick ass.

my 2c.

 

Actually that was brought to the table after the initial broughhaha.
Lincoln used emancipation as a force multiplier so that the south would
be distracted with increases in runaways and have to divert some of
their resources to that. Along with the division it caused between the
pro- and anti-slaver camps within the south it helped the cause of the
north by creating increased divisions in ideologies in the south
(although the factions were nearly as heated in the north over the
slavery issue). Like opening up another front in WW2 make live bitchy
for Hitler.

 

That last link was pretty amazing reading. Very well spoken author.

 

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts,
such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has
directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's,
that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

And whose administration is responsible for the intel generated? or is the
Bush administration not responsible for that mistake either?

 

That transcript was put out by iraq as propaganda to suit their ends. It
was denounced as a fabrication by glaspie and... "In November 1992, Iraq's
former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He
said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made
general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have
a strong reaction." "

All she is on record as saying is that the US does not involve itself in
borders disputes between friendly countries (friendly to US). However, if
you want to quote saddam misinformation as scripture that is your
perogative. I do not see the demos making an issue of it and Ms Glaspie
served during clinton administration and retired only recently.

I think the 911 commission has clearly laid the blame on the collection
agencies and has recommended that an intel czar be set up and given powers
to handle the problem. Any blame would be in not acting on intelligence.
If an error would occur, and clearly kerry and the majority of americans
agree, the president has the authority to act in our defense. I am using the
word authority as that is what kerry said and I suspect most americans agree
with.

 

Wait, if you look and read you'll see that we made no indication of go
ahead. We also didn't specfically say that we wouldn't get involved either.
The article said "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as
your dispute with Kuwait".

Interesting spin to make this a left side issue only. If you do have the
link to an actual transcript or the correct quote I would be interested.
However I would probably find the same results. Which pretty much states
that the US gives no indication that it would oppose war in the region.

9 months old??? I thought Bush came into office in 2001. The war in Iraq
occurred in 2003. He had a couple of years to get intel. After 9/11 I
would expect that became a higher priority. In fact I believe he made Iraq
a priority when he came to office (which I would've done in his new job at
the time).
Yes I agree that Bush, Clinton, and Bush should share responsibility for
these problems. But again GHB and WJC are not running for President, so
this discussion is only really relevant to the current opponents.
BTW that does include Kerry's record in the Senate on these matters since he
is running for president.

 

The interview did take place and Glaspie should have said more than she did,
should have clearly given a warning or even made a threat. What is in
dispute is a couple of phrases where it appears that she is giving approval
for the invasion. That is the part that was fabricated. What I dont
understand is how a canadian born career diplomat and female got assigned as
ambassadoor to a patriarchal (male dominated) culture. Females do not have
any authority there and a women making a threat would be taken as a joke.

Elmer has supplied references for much of what he says, unlike othere here.
I had never seen or heard of that "transcript" and I spent some time
googleing and reading up on it before replying. Bush should have appointed
(i assme he appointed ms glaspie) somebody who can threaten to kick ass. At
the time of the invasion, both countries were friendly to us and to each
other. The koreans, chinese and russians have had massive buildups of
troops at their own borders when they have had disputes amoung one another.
The russians and chinese once fought a border war, same for NVietname &
China. It is like playing poker. Was saddam bluffing? Was it preparation
for a real invasion? Who knows for sure? Photos of missles, tanks and
troops can be decoys instead of the real thing. If the photo is of a decoy,
is that a "mistake"? A mistake would be not doing something about it. It
is no mistake for saddam to want his enemies to believe that he has WMD.
There was some thought that he didnt want to lose face in front of the
syrians and libyans who were convinced he had the stuff and were afraid of
him. Have you ever folded a poker hand and then found that your pair beat
the other players pair but he didnt have the 3 of a kind in the hole like
you thought he had? The koreans & israiles would like nothing better than
for the rest of the world to think they have nukes and are prepared to use
them. Clearly, saddam was not bluffing about WMD and he used chemicals on
his own people, wiping out about 3000 or so of his people in a test.

 

I wasn't aware of the source either. However I would simply ask that if the
quote was incorrect to just point me to the correct quote because I am
interested in the facts.

I guess war is a strong reaction, however I don't believe Saddam expected
war. I think he was expecting strong diplomatic reations instead of war.
Can you find anything that said that he knew we would come to war with him
over this.

They haven't, read back through the converstation to see where this came
from. Its usually interesting where arguments progress from.

As do I when those simply refuse to accept responsibiltiy for their actions
and just defer it to some other converstation. The 9/11 commission was
dealing with the 9/11 incident and what happened and how to avoid it in the
future.
Since this part of the conversation was dealing with the WMD's and the
current Iraq situation, something the 9/11 panel is not dealing with, I
disappointed you would attack me on partisan politics. Hopefully it was
just a mistake on your part.

As with the majority of Americans, they don't care about politics. Did you
know that most of the Bikers Rights organizations (including TMRA2)
supported Bush for president in 2000. Of course the non-liberals knew that
because they must have been attending those meetings. If you weren't there
then my guess you must have been supporting Gore or possibly Nader.
Otherwise you would have been there, right!
They weren't there when we didn't support clinton, they weren't there when
we did support bush, and now they're not there even tho support hasn't been
decided yet. So it looks like they are just not there for any reason. To
be honest I doubt if the bikers groups will throw their support with either
candidate this time. Too evenly split among the membership at this time.

Again I am disappointed at your cheap shot to TMRA2. If you would attend
the meeting you would see that both sides are represented in these meetings.
We typically don't get involved in political debates about candidates at the
meetings. These are personal choices. Our points are the issues that
affect bikers and we do go to bat for those candidates that support our
issues whether they are dems, reps, or other. We encourage our people to get
involved in the national level, but we have to remain focused on the state
level issues if we want anything accomplished.

I don't want these conversation to degrade into name calling and slander so
I'll back out at this time. Maybe we can do it again. I actually was
learning new things about both candidates. Go ahead and respond to the
stuff I've posted, I'll read it, but I promise not to respond.

 

Now gotdammit.. IceMan.. You lost me when you commenced the commercial for
Fords.. I'm callin' IceLady in protest.. LOL..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

The interesting theory about not accounting for time missing during military
service is very easily cleared up.. Even though, as civilians, we find it
difficult to account for our time as far back as ten years, the military
records doesn't have that same problem.. The DD 214 document accounts for
all the service time that a member spends on each assignment.. It also
documents individual achievements.. So far as has been determined, that
document has never surfaced in regards to Bush's service records..

Quite a few of the important documents which are involved in the Bush
military service, is missing.. Dental records DON'T document service
careers..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Seems that I recall the vote being taken was to the effect that the
president would have the "authority" to fast track the decision.. Splitting
hairs, somewhat.. I also recall that the president assured the congress and
senate, as well as the world that going to war would be the last resort..

Kerry has defended his vote in that regard .. He never "voted" for the war
in Iraq.. Hindsight being 20/20.. the events that have proven to be false,
that Bush used to justify the war in Iraq, has made the whole episode more
questionable..

Faulty intelligence is not a reasonable issue, when it is clear that Bush,
Cheney .. and this administration had laid contingency plans to attack Iraq,
even long before 9/11.. It is also relatively clear that Bush and his
administration manipulated and even lied about the intelligence they had
available, to justify the invasion of Iraq..

Colin Powell lied before the United Nations councils, as he held up the vial
of white substance.. Cheney is still lying as he campaigns for office across
the country.. Rumsfeld has been the only one, so far.. to distance himself
from the obvious deceptions used to justify this war.. Even though he played
his own part when he pointed to the locations where he claimed the WMD's
were.. Condoleeza Rice perpetrated the deception from the beginning..

There is no denying that Saddam Hussein is/was an evil and brutal dictator..
That was the responsibility of the Iraqis' and the leaders of the
neighboring countries.. not the responsiblity of the United States..to
remove him as leader of that country..

The reasons for Bush's determination to remove Saddam Hussein from
leadership of Iraq, is complicated.. There is no one certain fact/reason
behind that determination.. History will finally reveal to us, just what
those reasons truly are..

Meantime .. my vote and my support will go with John Kerry for president in
2004.. He is a very capable legislator who has served his country with
honor, in every respect.. and NOT for personal empowerment or financial
gain..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Can't hate a man for that... LOL.. Hell.. I did too.. Come to find out there
was a big difference in the peso to the dollar....Sheesh.. what a let down..

Nah.. ol' John came from "serious money".. from his own family... 'Course it
didn't hurt anything for him to marry into the Heinz fortune either.. That
enhanced the financial statement quite a bit, I'd assume..

Anyway.. I looked him in the eye, shook his hand and talked to the man,
himself.. He ain't no bad kinda dude.. Wouldn't wanna go "bar dodgin" with
him, but he's got a good steady handshake and he talks much the same
language you and I talk.. Same goes for the cat he's chosen for his running
mate.. I believe in my heart of hearts, that those two will deliver, if we
can put them in office...

It won't even hurt when you give up that ol' Ford, if the chicken is in the
pot, at the house.. LOL

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker