Saddam Hussein, that is.

From:

(Scott*in*Baltimore)

Saddam Hussein, that is.


Yet he had nothing to do with 911, the reason Bush said we were there in
the first place.
Bush made a conscious decision to lie to the American public in order
to carry out his personal vendetta against the man who tried to waste
his father. Bush was/is willing to trade x amount of American lives to
achieve his wants,
not for the safety or security of this country, but for his own
He should be tried for war crimes alongside Rumsfeld, which Germany
recently indicted and since he stepped aside, is no longer afforded the
protection top officials receive.

Hussein had to swing, otherwise, history would have been even more
unkind (if that's even possible) to Bush after Iraq re-elected him as
president, because that's probably what would have happened after Bush
pulls out of Iraq (and declares a false and hollow victory). That
country is every bit as divided as ours was the last few years, smack
dab right down the middle.
I find it amusing the Bush regime aided in expediting the trial to the
extent it did and agreed with the sentence but found it too macabre to
air.

The world looks at Bush as more of a threat to world peace than Iraq,
Iran or any other country dubbed "hostile" by dubya and they are right.
Clinton got a blowjob but Bush is screwing the country. But of course,
you will be hard pressed these days to find anyone supporting the US
occupation in Iraq except for armchair generals and chickenhawks who
have no relatives in combat.

Yet he had nothing to do with 911, the reason Bush said we were there in
the first place.

He said that after the 100 prior reasons didn't materialize. Including WOD,
Liberation from Saddam, to have free elections. Did I miss any?

The sad part about what you wrote, is that about 70% of AMericans polled around
the time of his re-election, believed him. Despite there being overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. The Dems ****ed up, too. They didn't seize upon this,
and were soft in their attacks on Bush during the election. I don't want to get
into this again. But all this negativity the people see now, I saw before we
went in. He had 2 natural enemies over there in Iraq and Iran. Theu checked each
other. He now has created 2 Irans. ****ing brilliant. What ****es me off most,
is I have to deal with people like my brother-in-law, that think he has these
big balls, and says when the Democrats win the White House, we'll be attacked by
terrorists every day. But he doesn't want to hear it when I tell him that
Republicans were in charge the last time we were attacked.



Vinnie S.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:20:50 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote in :

But he doesn't want to hear it when I tell him that
Republicans were in charge the last time we were attacked.


As well as the first time we were attacked. Remember Beirut?

From: (Vinnie*S.)
Yet he had nothing to do with 911, the reason
Bush said we were there in the first place.

He said that after the 100 prior reasons didn't

materialize. Including WOD, Liberation from

Saddam, to have free elections. Did I miss

any?

Yup, you're right! When he couldn't get public support for the invasion,
the reason for invasion changed several times.


The sad part about what you wrote, is that

about 70% of AMericans polled around the

time of his re-election, believed him. Despite

there being overwhelming evidence to the

contrary.


Yea. It sucks that people put such blind faith into the status quo
leadership of this country.


The Dems ****ed up, too. They

didn't seize upon this, and were soft in their

attacks on Bush during the election.


Agreed. They should have hammered this point repeatedly.

I don't want to get into this again. But all this

negativity the people see now, I saw before

we went in.

Thinking back, most of us on this group were against it at the time and
were arguing against attacking Iraq for all the reasons which came to
fruition. There were two or three in here who decided to support Bush at
all cost including attacking Iraq, but as time went by and it became
clear we were quagmired in Iraq (with no clear objective ever defined
and adhered), those folks disappeared.


He had 2 natural enemies over there in Iraq

and Iran. Theu checked each other. He now

has created 2 Irans. ****ing brilliant. What

****es me off most, is I have to deal with

people like my brother-in-law, that think he

has these big balls, and says when the

Democrats win the White House, we'll be

attacked by terrorists every day.



Ain't that a bitch? That's akin to "If we don't fight them there we'll
fight them here." There wasn't anything else Bush could do to make
certain that prophecy was any more self-fulfilling.


But he doesn't want to hear it when I tell him

that Republicans were in charge the last time

we were attacked.

Vinnie S.

Or that the Dems in office at the time who voted for the Iraq invasion
did so at the word of the Repubs which was since found to be nothing but
lies based on forged intel, documents and deliberate disinformation.
What really galls me with Bush is he said the invasion was necessary to
"stop the proliferation or transfer" of WMDS. Meanwhile, for more than a
year, 'lil Kim in N. Korea was not only mocking the US by informiing us
of its nuke progress every step of the way, it actually threatened us on
several occasion while Bush sat back and played whack-a-mole with
Hussein.
I said this before, but if Bush was really a Christian like he claims,
how in the hell can he disagree with the Bible that claims no peace in
the mideast until days of Revelation and Antichrist? He's either a false
Christian, bonafide lunatic or both. That the majority of "Christians"
don't even bother to question this position of his is also troubling.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:43:46 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
:

snip
What really galls me with Bush is he said the invasion was necessary to
"stop the proliferation or transfer" of WMDS. Meanwhile, for more than a
year, 'lil Kim in N. Korea was not only mocking the US by informiing us
of its nuke progress every step of the way, it actually threatened us on
several occasion while Bush sat back and played whack-a-mole with
Hussein.


North Korea knows the US won't attack because it would bankrupt half
the western hemisphere just for the humanitarian aid that would be
needed after an attack, let alone reconstruction costs (and associated
Halliburton kickbacks). But they do need to worry about Japan. The US
won't attack Iran either because it would cause a firestorm of hate in
the ME, effectively starting WW3.


I said this before, but if Bush was really a Christian like he claims,
how in the hell can he disagree with the Bible that claims no peace in
the mideast until days of Revelation and Antichrist? He's either a false
Christian, bonafide lunatic or both. That the majority of "Christians"
don't even bother to question this position of his is also troubling.


For starters, I don't think our autistic leader has enough brains to
be running the country. Most likely it's Cheney and Rumsfeld pulling
the strings from behind the curtain -- the Bible's got nothing to do
with it. It's clear now that Iraq was about oil. Saddam was unloading
huge amounts of cheap crude on the market despite the UN sanctions
(and, in many cases, right through the UN). The result was lower crude
prices and lower profits for US-aligned oil companies. Now that the
war has killed oil production in Iraq, the crude prices are up and so
are profits -- at record levels. Between OPEC, Chavez, and the US/UK
consortium, there's no such thing as a free-market economy when it
comes to energy. It's all a sham, just like the "reasons" for invading
Iraq. The Dems have their dirty little fingers in it, too; just look
at how much oil money was spent on Dems in the last election.

And I'm sure Bush was happy with the swift execution of Saddam. Now
that Rumsfeld has been charged with war crimes, he may be tried in
absentia where Saddam could have been called as a witness. That would
have been bad for a whole lot of Republican operatives going all the
way back to the Reagan administration.

But then again, maybe Bush & company are a bunch of kooks that are
actually -trying- to initiate the apocolypse..... ever watch that TV
series "Millenium"? Anyway, the majority of Bush-loving "Christians"
are hypocrites like N3CVJ. Whatever happened to that idiot?

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:43:46 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
:
snip
What really galls me with Bush is he said the invasion was necessary to
"stop the proliferation or transfer" of WMDS. Meanwhile, for more than a
year, 'lil Kim in N. Korea was not only mocking the US by informiing us
of its nuke progress every step of the way, it actually threatened us on
several occasion while Bush sat back and played whack-a-mole with
Hussein.


North Korea knows the US won't attack

because it would bankrupt half the western

hemisphere just for the humanitarian aid that

would be needed after an attack, let alone

reconstruction costs (and associated

Halliburton kickbacks). But they do need to

worry about Japan. The US won't attack Iran

either because it would cause a firestorm of

hate in the ME, effectively starting WW3.




I'm thinking he needs a successful military
action as a smoke-and-mirror parlor trick to take away from the muliple
failures in Iraq.


For starters, I don't think our autistic leader

has enough brains to be running the country.

Most likely it's Cheney and Rumsfeld pulling

the strings from behind the curtain -- the

Bible's got nothing to do with it.


Oh, I agree with you. It's just another item he uses to pander to a
certain block of voters.


It's clear now that Iraq was about oil. Saddam

was unloading huge amounts of cheap crude

on the market despite the UN sanctions (and,

in many cases, right through the UN). The

result was lower crude prices and lower profits
for US-aligned oil companies. Now that the

war has killed oil production in Iraq, the crude

prices are up and so are profits -- at record

levels.


It seems to me like we discussed this a few years ago. If memory serves
me right, I'm pretty sure you predicted (oil) price manipulation right
around the time Lee said Iraq may be to blame for 911.


Between OPEC, Chavez, and the US/UK

consortium, there's no such thing as a

free-market economy when it comes to

energy. It's all a sham, just like the "reasons"

for invading Iraq. The Dems have their dirty

little fingers in it, too; just look at how much oil

money was spent on Dems in the last election.


No doubt, many were involved, but check out "Project Bojinka." It's one
of those things that makes you ask , "WTF?"

And I'm sure Bush was happy with the swift

execution of Saddam. Now that Rumsfeld has

been charged with war crimes, he may be

tried in absentia where Saddam could have

been called as a witness.



Wonder if he had time to convey his memoirs to anyone? A pic is worth a
thousand words,,,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Rumsfeld&hl=en



If the link doesn't work, go to google video and type in "Hussein" and
"Rumsfeld."


That would have been bad for a whole lot of

Republican operatives going all the way back

to the Reagan administration.

But then again, maybe Bush & company are a

bunch of kooks that are actually -trying- to

initiate the apocolypse..... ever watch that TV

series "Millenium"?

Anyway, the majority of

Bush-loving "Christians" are hypocrites like

N3CVJ. Whatever happened to that idiot?


He seems to have disapeared along with any support Bush may have had.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:17:41 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From:

(Scott*in*Baltimore)

Saddam Hussein, that is.


Yet he had nothing to do with 911.

Nor does the fact that he's swinging.