-
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are like the exterminators who spread ants, cockroaches and termites all around a house, knock on the door and say: "You have a pest problem, and we can fix it. For a price."

And what is the price of this undeclared "War on Terrorism" being fraudulently played out in Iraq? Nearly 2,700 American dead, 20,000 wounded, 200 "coalition forces" dead, countless soldiers scarred for life. Plus tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. That's, the human cost. Add the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the toll that takes on taxpaying families who are picking up the tab. (Or future generations, indebted by this "borrow it now, let somebody else pay later" president.)

And every day, more rabid Islamics--ready to kill and be killed for Allah--are joining up for the war on "the Infidels." That's us, folks--you and me. Bush and his cronies in Washington and Tel Aviv are turning us all into targets. Not only did they find weapons, terrorists, and alliances where there were none, but they're like those exterminators who, for their own job security, spread bait around the house, to bring more vermin.

Bush, who dodged service himself in one no-win war, too easily spills the blood of brave soldiers, vainly searching for victory in another. And he has the gall to continue calling this a war for our freedom. It doesn't have a thing to do with our freedom! Iraq was not a threat to us. But now it is a threat; a cauldron of anti-American Islamic hatred, breeding Jihadists to defeat "The Great Satan."

And George If-You're-Not-For-Us-You're-One-Of-The-Evildoers Bush has the arrogance to call September 11 "Patriots' Day."

The destruction of the World Trade Center towers and nearby buildings, and damage at the Pentagon were either:
1) An example of some of the worst bureaucratic incompetence in history, or
2) An example of one of the most brazen conspiracies in history.

To call this day of murder and shame "Patriots' Day" is to point an accusatory finger at naysayers. These include those who question the government response before or after Sept. 11, those who impugn the war in Iraq, and those who believe there was government skullduggery in the Sept. 11 attacks. (A poll claims one third of Americans believes in the latter.) So if you question Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, the war, the 9/11 commission, Homeland Security, you are at best, unpatriotic, at worst a traitor.

Patriots don't destroy a country--theirs or others--for personal vendettas, power, a place in history, or to cover incompetence on the domestic front.

If Bush and his ilk are patriots, then I guess I'd rather be called a traitor.

Me thinks that your handle is incorrect, NonPartisan,

You sound like a democrat, and a lefty at that.

Lets set the facts straight shall we!

Things that make you think a little:
 
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in  January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
 
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war,  state the following:
 
a. FDR led us into World War II.
 
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
    From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ..  an  average of 112,500 per year.
 
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
    North Korea never attacked us.
    From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.
 
d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
    Vietnam never attacked us.
 
e.  Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire
     From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost .. an average of 5,800 per year.
 
f.  Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
     Bosnia never attacked us.
     He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan   ?     and did nothing.  Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
 
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us ,  President Bush has liberated two  ?     countries,  crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in  ?    Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist ?    who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
 
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Dravidian compound.   That was a 51-day operation.
 
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
 
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick
 
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
 
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!
 
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts
But Wait . there's more!
 
 
 
JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
 
Some people ill don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
 
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
 
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
 
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions.
I was in the space program.  It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was
my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to
take the daily cash receipts to the bank."
 
"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men … with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
 
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.
 
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.  You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
 
What about you?"
 
For those who don't remember .. During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
 
Now he's a Senator!
 
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.
 

realitycheck wrote:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

Whoa! Talk about logical fallacy city! What exactly is your argument here? You're comparing standard peacetime murder rates in country A with reported wartime combat deaths in a completely unrelated conflict in country B with no adjustments? Hmm...next time you take philosophy 101, try paying attention during the first class.

realitycheck wrote:

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost .. an average of 112,500 per year.

We were physically attacked by another nation. Iraq made NO SUCH AGGRESSION against the United States nor any of our allies. Germany was Japan's ally. What exactly do either of these facts have to do with Iraq?

realitycheck wrote:

d....
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two ? countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in ? Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist ? who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

First, our involvement in Vietnam goes back well before 1962 or Kennedy and has a lot more to do with the I-M complex, American globalism, standard cold war policy, and the CIA than Kennedy or Johnson...things that pretty much everyone agreed on.

We disagree on what "liberation" means. I'd prefer long-term democracy and economic stability, which is proven in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan.

realitycheck wrote:

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Dravidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

realitycheck wrote:

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!

WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A GOD-DAMNED THING?

realitycheck wrote:

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts
But Wait . there's more!

No, the conservatively-biased media is finally doing their job. Everytime I talk to a zombie loon, I'm reminded at how right Orwell was.

Look, I won't go into every single thing Bush has done wrong, but I'm going to make a simple-yet-much-needed request, and here it is in bold:

If you want to argue politics and you want to argue about Iraq, actually argue about what positive long-term good our prescence in Iraq might be helping in your warped little mind.

That's it. Don't tell us about the Clintons or Janet Reno or Ted Kennedy or Vietnam or World War II because THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CATSTROPHIC FAILURE OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE IRAQ WAR.

We (specifically Bush/Rice/Powell) had no reason to begin the Iraq War. None. Whatever you think our past leadership did or how you think our media is biased is not suffiecient grounds for fighting this awful quagmire and damaging our country further. America gains NO advantage by being there, we had no evidence they had weapons immediately harmful to us, and if we're going to start setting our military policy to helping others around the world, I've got a list of 50 places that would better to reorganize than Bagdhad. Premeditated war is against the UN charter, and this is the first time there were MASSIVE protests against a war BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED.

Even if you're to the right of Jerry Flippin' Falwell, don't you want to hold your political leadership to the highest standard? I do, regardless of who is in power. If you don't - and if you can't honestly admit that the Bush administration has been a monumental failure - then you're swimming in partisan retardation.

It takes a true patriot to look his home country in the eye and tell them that they're flat out wrong, and that they've turned into the enemy they once despised. You know what? George Washington would be dead set against everything that the Bush administration stands for. In fact, every one who TRULY loves the United States should be, because this is NOT what America stands for. This Orwellian-fueled attack-and-justify-later is NOT what my ancestors died for in the Revolutionary War or the Civil War or World War II.

jchagan wrote:

don't you want to hold your political leadership to the highest standard?

GREAT question, but it sounds like if it's not your standard, it is not high standard!

jchagan wrote:

If you don't - and if you can't honestly admit that the Bush administration has been a monumental failure - then you're swimming in partisan retardation.

Well, here comes your standard - if you don't agree with me, you are retarded.

realitycheck wrote:

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts

Amen! Ask our troops and listen what they have to say. The media is selling you all the fear garbage, but unfortunately it has been very effective.

Frasier wrote:

jchagan wrote:

don't you want to hold your political leadership to the highest standard?

GREAT question, but it sounds like if it's not your standard, it is not high standard!

jchagan wrote:

If you don't - and if you can't honestly admit that the Bush administration has been a monumental failure - then you're swimming in partisan retardation.

Well, here comes your standard - if you don't agree with me, you are retarded.

Er, no.

I request the following 4 as bare minimums, if not several more:

1. Stated objectives for action do not change after-the-fact;
2. Honest statements are made during the course of political debate;
3. Use of all available information before making a major decision without dismissing that which does not agree with your worldview.
4. Some sort of coherance and consistency in belief systems and personal integrity.

Under even the lowest levels of scrutiny, President George W. Bush fails miserably on all four. If you want to defend his policies, fine, but please recognize that our primary reason for being in Iraq has changed about four times. Recognize that 90% of what was said in the build-up to the Iraq War was knowingly fabricated and elaborated. Realize that the overwhelming majority of the "OH MY GOD! TERROR!" news is overblown to put unnecessary fear in the American people. Remember that before the Iraq War, previous weapons inspectors like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were saying up and down there was nothing there, only to be dismissed by Bush as wack-jobs (they and France and Germany were right, btw). The man is also a propoganda king who reshapes his own image every day depending on who he's talking to. Furthermore, his appointments save for his Secretary of State and his nomination for Chief Justice have left a lot to be desired. Rumsfeld set back the Iraq campaign six months with underestimations; his Secretaries of the Interior have been buddy-buddy with big industry, he has massive dissention within his own party, and his popularity has dropped like a rock.

Now, that to me is one gigantic failure that's cost America thousands of lives.

If you don't agree with that, fine, I guess, but I'm curious: what on Earth has he done during his Presidency that substantially helps America become a stronger country???