Biker Blogs > Justyforya's blogs > Patriot Guard not needed here.
Patriot Guard not needed here. Sort by:
Author
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Fri, Apr 20, 2007 18:24

Funny thing but in the lib state where I live - CA and the semi-lib area that I live in - east of SFO, I have not heard of any of these nut cases picketing any fallen soldier's funeral. I guess that is a thing that the so-called 'christ-tin reiche-wing nuts cases' do in the Middle America; or perhaps they are afraid of the rabid left libs beating the crap out of them? Yeah, we don't need the HAs to keep those idiots away; the libs got that issue under control. One other thing: how many funerals has Bush, Rice, or Cheney attended? I see the shrub running down to VA tech the day after, and the chimp ordering all Fed flags and half mask... so why didn't he do that for each fallen US GI? Can anyone define hypocrite? Seems like the shrubs picture is a great start.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Junie2006
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 2377
Posted on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 10:36

Short version You can be against the war. But for the people giving their lives everyday. And be for everyone and a solidarity with everyone who is caught up in this enormous tragedy and traversty.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Junie2006
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 2377
Posted on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 02:37

In order to win the POINT you must win the People. If you do not not win the people. You have lost the point. To win the people you must appeal to that which is most precious to their heart and personal identity. Attacking or undermining a person's respect, love and loyalty to their home, family, country or basic beliefs does not win the arguement. it just alienates everyone against you. No one would at this point say that the invasion of Iraq has been a good decision. There has been no wim in any real terms but a magnitude of losses on all sides. and the situation is stalemate. You are not going to win but if you leave you will lose any position of influencing that country and bringing and stability and intrastructure back. The insurgents or a more radical governemnt takes over and you are back at the beginning but with an even stronger alliance of anti-american feeling and wish to hurt and damage the west. Yes it is a major fcking mess. But poltiking off the backs of people's personal losses will not win you sympathy or they may think your cause is right. It will only alienate people and they will hate you as well as your message. Not a very good persuader or propagandist You need to unite the people behind a common cause and a common enemy. To destabilise the infrastructure of American confidence will do nothing but harm. Remember, the first line of attack for an enemy is to undermine the confidence and moral of the indigenous people. That is why you could be an enemy within. You ahev to look att he broder picture. Not just what you see. I wish the democrats and Nancy well in trying to find a peaceful solition and work with people. Diplomacy is not because people and nations get on. it is because we don't but the greater evil of war and its costs should always be avoided unless totally necessary. Junie


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 02:08

Springer, A few questions and statements of facts for you. Blix and UN inspectors were IN Iraq just before the illegal invasion. Don't you recall that? Blix asked the Shrub's administration where were the WMDs. Don't you recall that? So, why didn't Bush tell the in-country UN inspectors where they were? And why did Bush order the UN inspectors out before the invasion? And why did Saddam state [just before the illegel invasion] he would allow the IN-country UN inspectors access any location inside of Iraq? I recall Bush stating the only way we would not invade was if Saddam left the country. Don't you remember that? Please don't mass post that reiche-wing stuff on my blog. If you wish to post your thought OK.. but, I really don't want to see that crap spewed out by the Bush apologist. Lots of those quotes were from 1998 just in case you didn't notice. So when was the invasion? Do you know what stale Intel is? And who fed that Sadam WMD BS to the house and senate members. If you have any doubt go to CSPAN and watch Rice's last appearance infront of the Senate's foreign relation Committee. Several Senator's openly blasted Rice about lieing to them about Sadam having drone with nukes that could reach the east coast of the US. AGAIN UN INSPECTORS WERE IN IRAQ REQUESTING THE LOCATION OF ALL THOSE WMDS BUSH LIED ABOUT.... THAT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN..... The only one in America that ordered the invasion was the Shrub. Don't you believe in accountibility? Yep, and I agree, anyone that supported the use of force against Iraq should be kicked out of office. Did you read my statement of facts against Feinstein? I'm very familiar with the joint house/senate resolution authorizing the use of force - H.J. Res 114. OH BY THE WAY PELOSI VOTE NAY ON H. J. RES 114. Just in case you don't understand, NAY MEANS NO.. PELOSI DID NOT VOTE FOR THE SHRUB'S USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQIs. Now why did Bush out that CIA WMD SPY?.. Don't you know that is treason? Why would any Patriot or 'Patriot Guard' member support a traitor? Oh one more statement of fact, 9 billion dollars in the house bill would go for VA hospitals .. but I guess some people would call that pork. Lets see 1/2 trillion [that is 500 billion] blown in Iraq and the Bushtards are biittching about how much for what? These idiots never want US to leave Iraq... plain and simple.... Which lead us into the last question... who will continue to fight and die? The troops on their fouth and fifth tours of duty, or perhaps we just hire SOF to do the shrub's killing...


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Junie2006
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 2377
Posted on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 00:02

Just4ya I am not apologising for nothing. I believe the war is a big mistake from start to finish. Bin Laden has not been caught. It has incited more hatred and recruitment for people against the west and America. And just hundreds and thousands pf innocent people have been killed. I do believe the Bush wanted an opportunity to go into Iraq and lied from start to finish about it. As you know the fundamentalists have not come from Iraq but Egypt and Somalia and Saudi. But it was an idea to get a foothole in the middle east and get more American weight and influence there. Forgetting - or not believing that other people in the world are not that into American values or the American wy of life, and really do see it as anti-God and pro-materistic and money and pro-pornaography and a lower morality. Biush is like Blair a photo opportunitist. The Virginia shootins were a national tragedy and Bush can join with everyone against the common mad man with a bullet and a grudge. But he is probably advised that going to funeral would be ill-advised as they would worry what would happen. Not the grief or upset, but what he might look like on TV if he gets booed or egg on his face. Not seen Blair at any soldier funerals or their return here. In fact all his appearances are so stage managed no one can get near him. He will look like he is talking to hundreds but only his lackies and a few officials are present. He goes to visit a hospital but no patient, relative or nurse or doctor is allowed near him in case they tell him what they think. One old woman broke rank and went to him a d railled him in public about the state of her duaghters treatment. He couldn't handle it. He had her arrested and commtted to a psychi ward for assessment. Ther is no democracy or free speech or right to protest in England any more. What I am saying is in this. Even though I think you are wrong and millions have suffered, that you still have to remember the men and women who are giving their lives for teh blief that they are helping those back home. Many wars have been a compleete disaster with politicians pouring troops over the top to get slaughtered with no sign or hope of victory. I don't think you are going to win this one. No one fights harder than in their own backyard. But also don't forget that billions of tons of oil is being exported every day from Iraq free to the American people as a way of paying for the rebuilding of their country (Don't even go there about the amount of cock-ups America has caused there. 17 billion dollars of Iraq money gone missing. Americans just shrug their shoulders. have no accounts as to where this money went. Fact is if it is not concerted to the ground it goes. I disagree with your need to use the personal loss and grief of people for your political expediancy and point scoring I have seen so many people willingly destroy people's values and solidarity and belief for their own poltical arguement. I understand your poltical arguement and your anger at the Bush administration and the choices made. But I think you are a vampire using people's worries, grief and bereavement for your own poltical arguement. Bringing the troops back is a short "winner" of a political argurement. I like many look at the state of Iraq and say and what are you going to do with that. Its a mess. and it will disolve and the effect ont eh flow of oil will be even greater as their will be no Americans there to siphon it off. Please don't kae personal attacks. i understand poltics and war strategy and loved studying propoganda. I understand the poltical and economic mechanics but I also understand that people are more important and need to be held together and feel their son/daughter is doing good and not to misuse their grief. We had poltical agitators at funerals and sensitive rememberances. WE pulled them off the podiums and sat on them until the family went past. Misusing people's grief is not the time. Junie


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Mon, Apr 30, 2007 00:01

Cruisin #15 AMEN..


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 23:54

Springer #16... That is funny, 'California lib mental cripples'. So does that mean you are a 'Shrub loving neocon mental cripple'? OK dude it appeals you can read so why don't you read #34.. Ponder it for a few minutes and then tell me where the lies are. If your PG is so gun-ho about protecting our KIA soldiers why stop there. Why don't you/they show up in uniform or any other PG garb you might have on that day and visit Walter Reid or any other VA hospital to support the living wounded soldiers? It appears to me that the PG is another group like the 'swift-boat liars for the shrub's reelection' prorogating the idiot's failed policies. When I read posting from individuals like you that is the only logical conclusion I can derive. About the debating politics thing, sorry but lots of good can come from it. Look how the truth has changed American's opinion about Iraq. Yep, things have changed in America, since at Nov 6, 2006. Americans know Bush is a serial liar. Last weeks poll numbers shows Bush's approval rating at 28%. Yep, any house or senate member that voted to allow the use of force on Iraq sold out. No doubt about that one. Look at Feinstein, the US DEMOCRATIC senator from CA. Her husband, Richard Blum currently holds over 111,000 shares of stock in URS Corporation, which is now one of the top defense contractors in the United States. Blum is an acting director of URS, which bought EG&G, a leading provider of technical services and management to the U.S. military from The Carlyle Group in 2002. URS and Blum have since banked on the Iraq war, scoring a $600 million contract through EG&G. As a result, URS has seen its stock price more than triple since the illegal invasion began in March 2003. Blum has cashed in over $2 million on this venture alone and another $100 million for his investment firm. No doubt about it Feinstein, sold America and Americans out for her personal profit. But, 23 US senators and 124 US house members had enough courage to vote against the bill which authorized the use of force in Iraq. Those are the Senators and House Members we need to support!


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
SpringerHD2000
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 204
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 23:52

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0 by John Hawkins Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction... "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "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 "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "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 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "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 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "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 "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biol


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
SpringerHD2000
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 204
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 23:49

March 22, 2007 Bush Lied is the Big Lie By Debra Saunders Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson wants to impeach President Bush. In arguing that point, he asked Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday, "Have you seen the National Intelligence Estimate that was provided in October of 2002, in which the intelligence agency under the State Department said that Iraq was not building up a nuclear capability, that this whole story about the aluminum tubes (reportedly sought by Saddam Hussein in Niger) was completely off base?" I decided to re-read the NIE excerpts that the administration released. What does the report say? "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." The NIE also reported that Iraq had "expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production," that Baghdad had renewed production of mustard and sarin gases, and that Iraqi missiles could threaten the "U.S. homeland." Yes, the NIE key judgments reported that some officials in the State Department did not believe Saddam Hussein was pursuing a "comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." But the report also noted that, "Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that (U.N. weapons) inspectors departed -- December 1998." So let us review the Bush-lied argument that Anderson and other war critics espouse. They say Bush lied about WMD, when, in fact, America's best intelligence presented no doubt about Iraq having chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. And according to the NIE, most intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had been working on nukes for four years. Here's another point that the Bush-lied misinformation campaign has forgotten. While war critics point to Bush's inclusion of this sentence -- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- in his 2003 State of the Union Address as proof that Bush misled the country into war, Bush uttered those words three months after Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Bush Lied is the Big Lie. It takes the controversy over one aspect of U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD -- the nuclear program question -- to argue that the whole WMD argument was bogus. That is, the president's accusers are guilty of the very sort of dishonest selectivity that they accuse Bush of using. Now the Bush-lied lie is boomeranging on those Democratic presidential hopefuls -- Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and former Sen. John Edwards -- who voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution. By going along with the Bush-lied spin, by refusing to acknowledge that the intelligence community presented strong reasons to vote for war, these Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner. They now have only one rationale for their vote that they can use -- they were duped by the nincompoop Bush -- or one rationale that they cannot use -- they sent U.S. troops to Iraq against their better judgment but out of naked ambition. And the dishonesty now has placed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the uncomfortable position of pushing for passage of a bill to continue funding a war into next year that the grassroots believe was based on a lie. So how does Pelosi plan on getting the House to pass the Iraq spending bill? As The Washington Post reported, the Democratic leadership has larded the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act with pork. After all the (deserved) rhetoric decrying Republican big spending, the Democratic leadership inserted $25 million for spinach growers, $75 million for peanut storage, and $120 million for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen into the supplemental spending bill. The idea is to sweeten the pot so that war opponents will agree to fund a war they oppose, while war supporters will vote for the bill, despite provisions the seem to be designed solely to undermine the Bush surge. Pelosi frequently says that President Bush must heed the message that American voters sent in November 2006. Who knew that message was to fund the war while undermining the war effort and to spend more tax dollars on pork?


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 23:14

T #22, I don't understand the media is bad enough?


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 23:10

Junie #25, Yeah, explain why after the VT shooting bush ran over there the next day. You do have a point about the Shrub not wanting to deal with any fallen soldiers family at a funeral now... but why wasn't he there when most of America supported his invasion and occupation? Junie are you a shrub apologist?


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 23:04

T #26, I don't blog lies, I don't blog BS, I blog real issues so people will think about the sorry state of affairs. Changing the failing course of policies is my M.O.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 23:01

Junie, Junie, Junie.... Where do I begin.... For one, to justify someone doing bad is not the American way of 'truth and justice'. Second if all these people are saying bad things about someone, I think a smart person would listen and then judge the validity of these statements. Perhaps you brits do things differently over there.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 22:55

Why would I respect a president that: 1) Outted a CIA WMD spy. 2) Either by his own choice or his total lack of intelligence and good judgment allowed 911 to happen: See my blog entry 'Repost of Delete Blog.. 911 WARNING BUSH IGGIED'. 3) Lied to Americans that the UN inspectors were not in Iraq prior to the US illegal invasion of Iraq. Google '01/23/2003 Blix un inspector report'. 3) Lied about Saddam being a threat to America. 4) Lied about Saddam's connection to AL Qaeda. 5) Lied about Saddam's ability to reach NYC with nuclear drones. 6) Lied about Saddam seeking Yellow Cake UR from Niger. 7) Lied America into an illegal invasion. 8) Fired every general that warned him that HIS Iraq policies would not work. 9) F-ed over the mil time and time again. 10) Created more international terrorist than existed before 911. 11) Lied and continues to lie about the real mission in Iraq. 12) Renders foreign and American nationals. 13) Removed habeas corpus for detainees. 14) Removed due process for detainees. 15) Changed US policy to torture detainees. 16) Removed US adherence to the Genoa convection. 17) Illegally data mined Americans. 18) Illegally wire-tapped Americans. 19) Believes he is above all US and internal laws. This is just a short list of all the Chimp's accomplishments. With more time I'm sure this list could go on and on. If you wish to respect the Scrub, Chimp, or any other pet name you wish to called that sorry-ass idiot [that some may refer to as the President of the US] that is your choice, but you really should understand why lots of real patriot would like to see that idiot tried as an American traitor and US war criminal, and after his treason conviction, would like to see that traitor sent over to the Hague for his international war crimes trial. Springer you also don't need to apologize for expressing your opinions on my blog. It is good that you spent the time to ponder theses important issues that I do blog about. My blogs are factual and I don't spin BS. Perhaps you have not read or heard about these things but all of the statements presented in the above list are true. I guess the question I have for you is after you peruse all of the Shrub's accomplishments why do you offer/have any respect for him?


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 21:28

You are not too bright are you spirtvtwin? Instead of blaming libs and congress for trying to save young Americans, why don't you listens to all those Generals and military men who stated Iraq is just like nam and is a lost cause. Ok, I will try to limit the name calling. For one, most of the soldier [that I know of] who are in Iraq were ordered there. Perhaps all of your friends are there, as you stated "by their own choice". Interesting, I guess your friends there are SOF. I heard Blackwater pays 200,000/yr. Nothing like killing for a living and the living is good eh? One quest for you Spirit, how do you win an occupation? I don't have any clue do you? I would love to hear that answer. I bet you have not heard that our present mil strategy is, 'we will no longer stand down when the Iraqis stand up'. Yep, the chimp's plans now are endless occupation but, we all knew that from the beginning: aka the 12 perm mil bases. If you like, I will post General after General testimony that Iraq is lost. My past blog entries contain lots of their opinions about Iraq. I left all those old blog entries just so I have something to point to for people like you. Read 'Army Maj General Batiste testimony before Sen. Policy Comm', or the recent Petraeus blog Geez. Hey google 'military men stating iraq lost cause'. The first hit I got was Petraeus stating "Iraq can not be won militarily". It's funny how you quote the Bible to justify killing or being killed. Well not so funny, but then, all those religious nuts who believe our soldiers are dieing because all 'them there 'queers'' existing in America are also quoting the bible too. Are you'll reading the same Bible? I guess you have a lot more in common with them than you might think. Let's see, those religious nuts protesting at US soldier's funerals so the patriot guard can come out and protest them. Hey kind-of like Bush invading and occupying a country [to steal Iraqi oil] and in the process creating more terrorist so the military and 'defense' contractors [and I use that term lightly] can make more money creating weapons to kill the endless supply of terrorist. Bingo, it's win/win except for the poor boots on their third, fourth and endless tours of duties, and the remaining [living] Iraqis- who's country we more than less f-ed over. But, then again Saddam was an evil man, yeah right.. Freedom on the march goose-stepping to an oil rich country near ya. You got to love it. Spirit one question, which I asked a lot in here but NEVER get an answer. Perhaps you can help? Why did all those Americans die in Vietnam? Feel free to come into my blog anytime to express how the remaining [twisted] 25% of Bush and occupation supporters think, if you can call it that. Have a nice day, cuz I know your day will be better than the countless boots in VA hospitals across the nation and the families burying there love ones for a lost cause called 'steal the Iraqi oil'..


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
justyforya
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 424
Posted on Sat, Apr 28, 2007 05:23

T, I read your reply. I'm sorry for you lost [which of course could never have been make-up to you]. Several nights ago, as a KIA soldier was brought back home to Santa Rosa, every highway overpass was manned by fire and police vehicles [with lights flashing] in a show of silence respect for the fallen soldier. His funeral is this Saturday. Last funeral in the area had over 1000 people in attendance. But, after the crowds leave and the media moves on to the next Nicole Smith BS, it will only be the family that will have to cope with their lost. I would have preferred to have stopped that before it happened. In the end all of America's sacrifice will have been in vain. The fallen soldier's funeral is today 04/28/07. I will read and respond to all the reply later. Now, I have something else to do.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Junie2006
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 2377
Posted on Thu, Apr 26, 2007 00:40

.

Available only
to logged in members

Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
spiritvtwin
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 66
Posted on Wed, Apr 25, 2007 20:17

What Deb said..............DITTO The Patriot Guard is needed at all military funerals in my opinion. Even in the absence of protesters, because it has evolved into so much more than when it was started. Respect and honor for a fallen hero and his/her family and a profound gratitude for the sacrifice of service and ultimately their lives. How do we say thank you for that??????????? I for one will stand all day to honor a man/woman who gives there life for their country. Whether we agree with the war or not the men and women serving at this time are all there by there own choice, they know the risk, as I did when I enlisted. They deserve nothing less than a hero's send-off when they leave and a Hero's welcome home, whether that be dead or alive. John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." As anyone who has served will know the above scripture is exactly what we have vowed to do when we take the oath at enlistment. To protect our country and families and friends and especially the man/woman next to you in the line of fire. I asked you this before Justy and I don't believe you answered. If you did I missed it. Have you served your country??? I am US ARMY 1969 to 1972. Do you know the chain of command? The respect that those who hold those office's deserve? The war in Iraq will be a repeat of Vietnam if the Libs and the congress turn it into a political tool to get re-elected as they did before. Instead of funding it and letting the Generals and the Men in the field fight it to win. Oh and by the way Thanks!!! for helping to get Deb and I together, at least in part, it was one of your blogs that got us talking to each other....


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
TreasureTheHobo
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 4428
Posted on Wed, Apr 25, 2007 13:51

Springer, Speaking for myself only, I don't feel the need for an apology but I understand if you feel you must right something for yourself. I could not agree with you more. On every point. When it comes to the social, moral, spiritual, ethical breakdown of our country as a whole I am disgusted and terrified.


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Junie2006
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 2377
Posted on Wed, Apr 25, 2007 02:37

Springer, You'e fine. and I think it good for you to stand up and say you love your country and stand by it and your president and are fed up of bad things being said. Nothing wrong with that. The strength of the nation is in the common people and the common feeligs of pride and values which we feel we all share, no matter what our background and politics is. Same problems in England. Illegals flooding in. Cheap labour undermining ordinary workers rights and wage levels. And then goverment agreeing for millions from East Europeans and Baltics to come in. And we are not as big as America. MAD!!! Junie


Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Follow - Email me when people comment