# Terrorists prefer John Kerry and Democrats



## Bobm

This morning on CNN they were asking whether or not the socialist victory in Spain meant the terrorists were winning. Answer*: Definitely*. Up until the time of the terrorist (apparently Islamic) attack on those trains in Spain the government of Jose Maria Aznar was holding a dominating lead in the polls. Spain's new leader will be Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. He is pledging to bring Spain's troops home from Iraq. He will also adopt a foreign policy that is decidedly less friendly to the United States than was Aznar. *The new Spanish government will align itself with the European Axis of Weasels, Germany, France, Belgium and other appeasement-oriented countries. *

There is no doubt that terrorists are going to consider this to be a victory. How could they not? It's a week before a Spanish election. A man who has been bold and eager in his support for President Bush's war against terror and the liberation of Iraq is enjoying a seeming insurmountable lead in the polls. Terrorists attack ... 200 people die ... 1500 are injured ... and the people go to the polls and vote against Anzar. Many voters said that the terrorist attack was payment for Anzar's support of the United States. So that support is going .. and Islamic terrorism wins.

*Today, as a result of the Zapatero victory in Spain, the hand of Islamic terrorism is strengthened*.

*Clearly the terrorists prefer national leaders who will appease them rather than leaders who will try to locate them and kill them. This would mean that the terrorists would much rather see John sKerry win in the United States than President Bush.* I know that's a tough pill to swallow for the Democrats ... but the fact is that in this presidential election they are clearly on the same side as the terrorists. Saying it ain't so won't work. You're just going to have to find a way to accept it and live with it

Now ... here's the more sobering question for you to consider. Do these Islamic terrorists think that the same tactic would work in the United States? Would a deadly terrorist attack in this country help them as it did in Spain? Would voters quickly turn against George Bush and put a man more friendly to them in office? Now I'm not saying that this is the way Americans would react. What I am saying is that this might be the way the Islamic terrorists think you would react. If they do, then the danger of another deadly terrorist attack on America has just become more serious.


----------



## Bobm

When it comes to terrorism there is clearly a difference between the way those who vote Republican and those who vote Democrat feel. We have a new Gallup poll out. The poll was taken during the first week in March. Voters were asked which issue they thought was more important in the election, economics or terrorism?

Combining all voters, 65% thought the economy was the most important issue. Only 26% said that the most important issue was terrorism. The figures are different when you consider party affiliation. Republican voters put terrorism ahead by 48 to 46%. That's bad enough ... but it's far worse for Democratic voters. Only 10% of Democrats said terrorism would be the number one issue.

Then the question was phrased differently. Gallup asked: "If you had to choose, which of the following presidential candidates would you be more likely to vote for --- a candidate who would do a good job on the economy, or a candidate who would do a good job protecting the country from terrorism?"

The economy won by 51% to 42%. For Democrats, however, the split was 72% to 25%. *Republicans went for the president who would protect us from terrorism by 62 to 32%.*

The differences are stark and disturbing, and it all comes down to your view of the role of government. If you feel that the primary responsibility of the federal government is national defense -- keeping our country and our people safe from foreign aggression then you are more likely to vote Republican. If, on the other hand, you feel that the primary responsibility of government is to take care of you economically .. to make sure you have a job, and to inoculate you from the harsh consequences of laziness and poor decision making .. you'll vote Democratic.

Now .. an intemperate question of my own. Which type of voter would be most likely to create a society in which you would like to live? The type of voter who seeks government immunity from poor decision making and who feels that his basic needs should be guaranteed to him by a paternalistic government; or the type of voter who seeks a government that will protect his social and economic liberty and allow him to fail or flourish based on his own hard work?


----------



## Field Hunter

IS THIS REALLY AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE ON THE HOT TOPICS PAGE OF A NORTH DAKOTA HUNTNG AND FISHING FORUM????????????????


----------



## Bobm

Its an issue that should be on the Hot topics page of every forum in the US. All politics are important and related because all factors not just hunting should be considered when we vote. If you're are not interested don't participate, no harm done. I personally need and enjoy a little variety in the subjects we discuss.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Bobm said:


> I personally need and enjoy a little variety in the subjects we discuss.


Then why do you talk about the SAME thing all of the time?


----------



## zogman

Fieldhunter and Rabbit chocker,

Why do you read Bobm??????
Just move on :withstupid:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Good point Zogman! :beer:

RC


----------



## Fetch

Bob we have such interesting political things happening - why would we care which clown gets put in the White house ???

We have our own Terrorist trying to invade our country :roll: :wink: :lol:


----------



## zogman

Fetch,
They have been invading for years. It just got unbearable in recent years when more and more and more kept coming and coming. When did Mr. Freelancer wake up? About 3 years ago just as it was approaching crises. When I examine Kerry's record and listen to his talk now. That to me is also a crises :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman

I guess I like Bobm keeping us abreast of the latest political aspects of our society. I have always said I vote for the lesser of two evils. Like Bobm I don't think we have a choice this fall. Do we want to keep our guns? Do we want to fight terrorists in the streets and cities in Iraq and Afghanistan or New York. Many people scoff at this, but I don't think they are sophisticated like they see themselves rather I think they are gullible and just fell off the cabbage truck. The terrorists just won in Spain. No doubt they are encouraged by their actions. Did the winner in the election say weeks ago that he would pull troops out of Iraq. If he did he encouraged the attack and is partially responsible for it. If they are encouraged in Spain what will happen here days before our election. Are we going to be easily swayed. Our problem is discerning the truth. Our politicians are more loyal to their party than their nation. I have little loyalty to politicians, but it insults my intelligence when they stand up with school children and say that another party is trying to starve the children. We all need to take this serious as distasteful as politics is. I would encourage those who are interested to get on the web and look at factcheck.com Personally I can't trust a liar. Tonight I had a call from the Second Amendment Foundation asking for a lifetime membership. If you don't think we could lose the second amendment you in a state of denial. If you like a certain politician get active and try to sway them. None are perfect, but when you vote at least know which one will support what you believe in. ? If some politicians get their way I will not be arguing with headhunter about which caliber is large enough for deer we will be arguing about how big a rock it is ethical to hunt deer with.


----------



## headhunter

Plainsman, Good Post. (Especially the last part! :lol: ) I still need to buy you a beer dangit. I'll buy Zogman one too, even though I'm not sure which side of the fence he is on, but he seems thirsty :wink: Have a good Toosday.


----------



## Bobm

Field Hunter I decided to start explaining whats going on politically as best as I can with a viewpoint you won't here from the mainstream media. I'm doing this so that when the various readers of this web site examine what they feel are shortcomings of the Bush admistration in the areas of environmental laws (some valid some not ) that they will at least consider the bigger picture when they cast their vote in November. 
Of the two choices Bush is the better one for dealing with terrorism by far. I'm not a Democrat hater its just that the current democrat party is not the party it once was its driven by the far left and I believe that John Kerry (who is the most liberal senator in the senate,even more than Teddy Kennedy) will put our country in a very dangerous position. My concern for the country and our citizens saftey is larger than my concerns about hunting. 
Robert I know you to be a liberal and I know you to be honest so all I can say is that my viewpoint is probably not one you want to hear but I also think its one (reguarding Kerry) that I've been honest and tried to verify that everything I write is factual. If the Democrats would of nominated a honest conservative someone like Senator Zell Miller I would of voted for him. 
Zogman If you think I'm stupid thats fine just keep reading and at least you'll get to hear the "stupid" conservative side of things, no hard feelings I've been called a lot worse.


----------



## Bobm

Now back to the point of this thread
It has become even more clear that the Islamo-fascist movement has scored a tremendous strategic victory with its attacks last week in Spain. Dutch economist Bernard Walschots nails it: "Al Qaeda or its affiliates have toppled a democratic government for the first time. This may have dramatic implications for the Western democracies." Did you get that the first time around? The Islamic Jihadists have just toppled the government of a major Western nation. Socialists have taken over in Spain. Islamic terrorists like socialists ... they're brothers under the skin.

This morning we learn that CNN has discovered *an Al Qaeda document which set forth a plan to get Spain to pull its troops out of Iraq.* Apparently the document was posted on a computer bulletin board some months ago. This document *talked about developing a strategy to force the conservative government of Spain out of office and elect socialists. And just how was that going to be done? Terrorist attacks, that's how.* So, the plan was formulated, then implemented, and proof of success came quickly. The people of Spain fell into line immediately and voted out a government unfriendly to terrorism, and voted a more friendly one in.

Now Spain is loudly touting its plans to become one of the Axis of Weasels, joining Germany, France, Belgium and other Euroweenie countries in a program of appeasement toward Islamic Jihadists. How weak are the Europeans? Well, let's take this comment from Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission. Prodi says: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists ... terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago."

Force isn't the answer? If not force, what? Appeasement? Doesn't Prodi remind you of Chamberlain prior to World War II*? Read your history. Terrorism always works against the appeasers.*

What's next? How about England? Intelligence officials are already suggesting that Great Britain will be next in the Islamic campaign of terrorism. Then ... the United States. The Wall Street Journal editorial this morning says that the U.S. must brace itself for the next wave of attacks. *They worked in Spain ... so Al Qaeda must be thinking that they can work as well in America. *

This election year just got a whole lot more interesting ... and dangerous.

Spain is surrendering ... but World War IV continues.


----------



## Bobm

Anyone paying attention to the news has heard the latest BS From Kerry about supposed leaders from other nations that he talked to maybe the new Socialist leader is one of them. 
*Left-wing socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who won Spain's presidential election on Sunday, has endorsed John Kerry.* It used to be that world leaders stayed out of elections in other countries. Not so anymore.

Speaking to a British newspaper four days before his election, Zapatero said "I think Kerry will win. I want Kerry to win." He also made several other pro-Kerry statements including calling the Bush administration "the most reactionary American administration in recent times." Why? Because America is striking back at Islamic terrorists while much of the rest of the world watches? *What will Mr. Zapatero do in retaliation to the Madrid bombing? Invite the misunderstood terrorists for tea? Give me a break*.

More drivel from Zapatero: "We're aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration." Maybe the DNC could get this guy to campaign for Kerry.

*Your choice this November is clear, you have Kerry who along with friends like Zapatero will have an agenda of appeasing Islamic terrorists and cutting deals with tyrants, or George Bush, who has demonstrated the will to defend America. *


----------



## Bobm

Remember when Howard Dean said he found "interesting" a report that somehow President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance? Well, I wonder what the good doctor will think of this story. And here's the thing...this isn't some made-up story by a left-wing conspiracy nut, this is 100% pure fact.

*Four months before 9/11, Brian Sullivan (a retired FAA special agent from the Boston area) warned Kerry that Boston's Logan International Airport was ripe for a jihad-style suicide operation with a coordinated attack*. Working with a TV station for a report on airport security, Sullivan was able to get knives and other weapons through airport security 9 our of 10 times they tried.

*As Kerry is the Senator from Massachusetts, Sullivan sent him a letter:* "Think what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day. With our current screening, this is more than possible*." Kerry's response, he replied with a letter, stating that he had passed along the concerns to the Transportation Department. In other words, he had passed the buck*. Sullivan offered to go to Washington and give a presentation on security lapses, but a Kerry aide told him not to bother since he wasn't a constituent.

*So we're now supposed to trust Kerry to be president of the United States? I don't think so. *Oh, and by the way...our airport security screening is still terrible. As long as we're strip searching little old ladies instead of profiling Islamic terrorists, flying commercially won't be any safer.


----------



## Bobm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/geor ... 0315.shtml

anyone reading this thread will find this article interesting.


----------



## Bobm

*AND THIS IS WHY JOHN KERRY VOTED AGAINST SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS?*Kerry seems to be having a rough time 'splaining his no-vote on continuing funding for our troops in Iraq. He's now telling people that he would have voted for the $87 billion funding measure, but decided not to because Bush wouldn't raise taxes on the rich to pay for it.  Wow! A presidential candidate saying "If you're not going to raise taxes on rich people, then I'm not going to vote to give our troops what then need in Iraq. So there." 

The question is: *Which is more important to John Kerry. Supporting our troops in Iraq, or raising taxes on the rich? We now know the answer. *

THE FRENCH LOVE KERRY

This should come as no surprise, since John Kerry and the French share the same anti-American, pro-terrorist agenda. It is a bit of a surprise just how popular he is over there.

Apparently, Kerry's face is all over magazines and newspapers on the newsstands of Paris. This quote from a Frenchman says it best: "He is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician, with a certain diplomacy, a certain elegance." He must mean a certain elegance with supporting terrorist regimes sympathetic to Al-Qaeda. He is right about one thing, though. Kerry does look French.

It's a good thing the French can't vote in American elections.


----------



## Bobm

Since Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction haven't been found yet (he had them, it's just a question of where they went,) many of our supposed "allies" are turning into weak-kneed Islamic terrorism appeasers. You have the Al Qaeda-backed election in Spain, and now the president of Poland says he was also "misled." The real reason these countries have joined the axis of weasels is because they have abandoned the war on terrorism. Too bad for them. We'll have to keep that in mind the next time they need something.

But let's talk about a real ally in the war on terrorism. A country that doesn't just pay lip service to the fight against Islamic terrorist, but one that actually takes action. I am talking about Pakistan. Let's just look at the evidence of their actual assistance in hunting down and killing members of Al Qaeda, as well as participating in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

Yesterday, the President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf said that his government had 200 Al Qaeda fighters surrounded, believed to be protecting the terror network's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. You may have seen this loser on TV delivering his "message" via the Al- Jazeera network. A Pakistani General said his forces were committed to " finish off the terrorists" and that within a day or two there might be " good news" to report.

*That's how you fight the war on terrorism. You fight it with helicopter gunships and artillery, not hot air at the United Nations. *


----------



## Dano2

BOB! I dont think anyones listening :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

Bobm

You know North Dakota is a very conservative state so many of us up here are listening to you. There are however a few that it will not sink into their head until some guy in a turbine rides his camel into their living room and shoves and AK47 up their nose. Now some people may think that is profiling, but I think it is ridiculous watching them at airports searching 80 year old grandmothers. A ridiculous form of PC. Well, ridiculous - PC that was redundant wasn't it?


----------



## Bobm

Dano2 you're correct they are not listening( duh ) they are reading however and at least I now know you are a faithfull reader :lol: . And at least 290 others may have an interest as well so I'll keep trying. If I only change a couple of their minds or at least get them interested enough to do their own research It will have been worth it. Don't worry its not that long to November then I'll find something else to talk about :beer: Maybe hunting or some such nonsense!


----------



## Bobm

Plainsman you and I both know they just can't help but read my little reports and that tickles me to no end :lol: :lol: Thanks for insight its encouraging to know I'm not the only one who sees the danger in the terrorist and the importance of the issue.


----------



## headhunter

I'm with you too Bob/Plainsman. .... And I know Zogman is too!!!  Zogman, are you gonna take me deer hunting in Canada with you next time? I'll buy the beer/gas, you buy the license. :beer:


----------



## zogman

It is taking a long time to get caught up on all this info. I was out west for 3 days last week and will be for 2 more this week. That is all for now. Oh, Plainsman PC was made up by some liberal who spent most of his/her time sittting on their dead behind feeling sorry for them self


----------



## Bobm

Well, they're still scraping Hamas "spiritual leader" (that's a liberal media term...I prefer the more factual "Islamic terrorist") Sheikh Ahmed Yassin up off the sidewalk outside his mosque. :beer: Witnesses say Israeli helicopters fired three missiles at Yassin. The world will call this an evil act because Yassin was in a wheelchair. In case you don't realize it, terrorists in wheelchairs get some sort of a bye. Hey, it's only fair!. They got his two bodyguards too, thus compounding the terrible crime. After all, these two bodyguards were just trying to help a crippled old man. They were killed instantly. Good shot. :beer: Past Israeli governments had been reluctant to target Yassin, but not Ariel Sharon. They tried to get him once before last September, but missed. Not this time.

The Israelis know how to do this right. They know that Hamas and the PLO are terrorist organizations, and they don't worry about making them mad, or trying to appease them. *They find out where they are, and they kill them. End of discussion*. Israel is fighting for survival, fighting to stop the Palestinian homicide bombings that have killed 474 people since September 2000 (the majority of them Israelis.) Yassin had every opportunity to ask his followers to stop the violence. He didn't. And why not? *Because despite what you may read in the media, the Palestinians don't want peace.* In 2000 at Camp David, Yasser Arafat walked out after being offered a Palestinian state, the Temple Mount, Gaza, almost the whole West Bank and half of Jerusalem. The Palestinians didn't even make a counter-offer. *The reasons are simple: if there was peace, then the Islamic terrorist leaders would simply be out of a job*.

The soft-on-terrorism crowd is worried that now Hamas will strike back. *NOW they'll strike back? They're always striking*!!!. They're always out there trying to kill innocent women and children. They're attacking children in their schools, and where they gather for pizza after school. What in the hell are they going to do that they haven't already been doing?

The Israelis know terrorists cannot be appeased, so they must be eliminated. *This is what John Kerry and the voters of Spain can't seem to understand. I wonder where Yasser Arafat is right now? * :lol:


----------



## Bobm

Al Quieda claims to have aquired Nukes, DO YOU STILL think jobs are our biggest issue in this election?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040321_1301.html


----------



## SiouxperDave25




----------



## Bobm

Just when you thought the Bush administration might grow a pair and praise Israel for doing what needed to be done and killing Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, they don't. The news out of the White House progressively got worse. Too bad they caved in. They should be celebrating.

The White House said "we are deeply troubled by this morning's incident in Gaza." Why? If the United States' official position is that Hamas is a terrorist organization, then why would we be upset about Israel killing the leader of that organization? Then, the spineless terrorist-appeasing weasels at The State Department had to chime in. Their take? The "attack" was "deeply troubling," would increase tensions in the Middle East and make it harder to pursue peace. What are they talking about? There is no peace to pursue. The only way there is going to be peace is if Israel is allowed to win the war and then set the terms of surrender. That's how you get peace. But oh no...we don't want to offend the rest of the Arab world, do we? Can't make the terrorists mad, you know.

*By the way, did anyone else notice that the media is constantly calling this an "assassination," instead of what it is, which is a terrorist killing? * WOuld killing Bin Laden be called an "assassination?" After all, he's also the leader of a terrorist organization.


----------



## Bobm

Sorry I initially put this in the wrong thread

Fetch just keep reading and at least you will be informed. :lol: 
HE WAS JUST AN ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS LEADER 
You've heard of CAIR, haven't you? That's the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This is a group that spends most of its time trying its best to ignore Islamic terrorism while searching for any incidents of insensitivity shown toward Muslims by weary Americans. 
CAIR has now made its feelings known on the death of Hamas terrorist Ahmed Yassin. CAIR, of course, condemns Israel for the killing of Yassin, and calls Yassin an "Islamic religious leader." Wait ... it gets more ridiculous than that. CAIR says that the international community has to "take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence." 
Thanks to James Taranto's Opinion Journal column, we can now take a look at the *Covenant of the Hamas. *This document was issued on August 18, 1988. It *is the founding document of Hamas*. CAIR calls Yassin an "Islamic religious leader?" Yeah .. the leader of Hamas. 
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the Covenant of the Hamas 
Article 7: "*The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them.* Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." 
Article 13: "So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement ... *There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad [holy war]." *Now just what was it that CAIR said in their statement on the death of Ahmed Yassin? Oh yeah ... "The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence." Read those bits from the founding document of Hamas ... and then spend a few of your precious moments thinking about how idiotic it is for CAIR to be imploring the international community to talk about "wanton Israeli violence." Didn't we read something about "fight Jews and kill them" and "there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him"? And the world needs to protect these goons from those bad, bad Israelis? *I hope the Israelis open season on Hamas and Kill Arafat its something they should of done a long time ago*.


----------



## Bobm

Proving once again how out-of-touch and pathetic his campaign has become, John Kerry is now whining about a joke that President Bush made Wednesday night at the 60th annual Radio and Television Correspondents' dinner. This is a traditionally non-partisan gathering presidents usually attend that is known for comedy and people poking fun at themselves.

At the dinner, President Bush gave a speech in which he presented a slideshow of various self-incriminating pictures, and he gave a description of each. In one of the photos, Bush is seen looking underneath a couch and he said "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere." The crowd erupted in laughter, and everyone got the joke. The segment was replayed on the morning news shows, and everyone laughed and got the joke. That is, except Democratic sourpuss John Kerry, who didn't find it a bit funny. *It looks like 'ole Lurch's skiing vacation didn't do a thing to loosen him up. He should really get that checked out*.

Offended that someone else might actually be having some fun, the Kerry campaign released a statement last night: "If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought." *Boy, this guy would be no fun at a party. Unfortunately for Senator Kerry, he is the one that is out of touch. Everyone else thought it was funny.*

I guess we just learned that John Kerry can't take a joke. Poor baby.

But wait! This just in! Kerry is upset about Bush's jokes at the correspondent's dinner. *But what about Kerry's joke back in 1998*? Matt Drudge has come up with a little joke that sKerry told back then about the first Bush administration. Kerry said: "Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle. There isn't any press here, is there?"

*So ... Bush makes a joke about searching for weapons of mass destruction in his office, and that's a real bad thing to John Kerry. But it's quite OK for Kerry to make jokes about assassinating the Vice President.*

I think I get it now. This politics thing is sooooo confusing.


----------



## dosch

BOBM

http://pub50.ezboard.com/ffinalplanetfrm6


----------



## Bobm

Thats funny I do appreciate your sense of humor :beer: , I'll quit ranting in November, Just keep reading :lol:


----------



## adokken

Bobm, Just in case you have not figured this out, most of us are sick and tired of your ranting, After all this is a hunting and fishing forum. You are just using up space and who the hell cares what your opinion is as I imagine only about a half a dozen read your posts. Seems like you are trying to convince your self as much as anyone else.


----------



## Bobm

Adokken, you're correct it is a hunting and fishing forum but its also true that many of the people on this forum have attitudes that In my opinion are the point of view of only recieveing the side the major media CNN,CBS<ABC ect portrays. 
*I don't want anyone reading what I write to believe it to be true unless they take the time to read up and determine on their own if I am correct*. My desire is to state the political case from a conservative point of view I have and believe is factual. 
This is an Election year and while hunting issues are important they are not the most important issues facing us as a nation and if I can get just a few of the people that are going to vote to actually research the issues so their vote is reasoned whether they agree with me or not I will feel I've accomplished something.
Unfortunately most young people have little interest in politics ( I was no different) and that is slowly causing this country to be turned into a country that is ruled by a relatively few vocal extreme groups which have already done our country great harm. Politcal correctness comes to mind as a perfect example of what I'm talking about. 
I believe and hope that many of the young hunters that read these posts and don't really pay attention to the news may at least see that there is another side to many of the issues they might see or here about in the network news. 
If its such a hardship for you to read these posts don't CLick on them, its really that simple, although even a reasoned and experienced older gentleman like you will probably benefit from them, It never hurts to hear the opposing viewpoint. If its ranting( I say its not) then it has no substance so prove me wrong! Read up on the issues and state your case. As for taking up space :lol: uh OK.


----------



## adokken

To me it is about like attending a social function and having some one trying to monopolize the evening with their veiws. After a while every one politely moves away. I consider this type of behavier rude and offensive. Personally I would of loved to have been able to support McCain, Was not that impressed with Gore and Certainly will not voice my opinion of what this administration has done to my country. and it is my country too. I have done the best that I could, served in two wars and never was on any public dole and hopfully served my community well.


----------



## zogman

Adoken,
Any time you see Bobm's name you don't have to read it. JUST THAT SIMPLE. To Qoute JN " you can't handle the truth"


----------



## Bobm

Adokken, your analogy is flawed, a accurate analogy would be that a few people at a social function are having a *conversation you wandered over and after hearing what they are dicussing demand that they not discuss it because you don't agree with it.* Typical liberal reaction free speech is ok if its liberal speech. What is it about liberals, you guys just hate to have your so called leaders true agenda and lack of character exposed.
There isn no one forcing you to read my posts. 
And don't even try to claim your not a liberal " was not that impressed with Gore" , if Gore was president during 9-11 he ( and Kerry) would be carring on the Clinton legacy of "negotiating" with terrorists we probably would of ended up sending financial aid to Bin Laden and raising the taxes on the life insurance of the people that died in the attack to pay for it. Even the people of Gores own state wouldn't vote for him. McCain is a nut and not doing anything for the republican party his own little dislike for the president is so transparent its laughable which is why the mainstream republicans ignore him. McCains anti free speech tendencies would fit nicely with your views though so I guess it makes sense that you would like him.
GO ahead and voice your opinion of this administration, they are not perfect but this administration is handling the most pressing event facing this nation terrorism , correctly, and the economy is excellent and getting better all the time. Considering the bursting of the High tech bubble and the war on terroism our economy is coming back nicely, much to the chagrin of the Democratic party who would prefer to have the economy tank because they don't care about this country all they want is power back. And they realize that Bush is doing such a good job with the terror issue that their best chance is a poor economy. 
*I'm going to continue to give a running rebuttal of the propaganda our leftist democrat liberal media spews if you don't like it don't join the conversation theres plenty of other topics being discussed here, you don't need to horn in on this one *although you're welcome to try to rebutt my points, good luck.
I'm glad to here you served in two wars and never were on the public dole for that you are to be commended and I'm sincere about that .


----------



## buckseye

Hey bobm...I think this administration is causing more trouble and terrorist activity than any whitehouse family ever has. Sure our strong Military can force our ways upon the world but is that our doctrine? I don't think so, we need to get control of this runaway train the American Oil Co's/interest have unleashed on to this planet.

Every country that tries to become energy independent is crushed and or sanctioned. This has not been beneficial to us or the world, sure you can say look at our gas prices but also we can say why isn't there fair competition for other sources of energy.

We haven't even seen the worst of this yet, wait till there is very little non-renewable energy available then we will see the **** hit the fan.


----------



## Bobm

See buckseye is good at making his point and stating his opinion without telling me I can't state mine and thats why I respect him. Even if he is wrong :lol: current estimates are that oil reserves world wide will last hundreds of years so I don't think we will be here to see the end but its good to be an optimist and think you'll live that long  .
Buckseye I agree that we definitely should be coming up with a solar technology and let the middle east quit squeezing us, we should of started it back when Carter was screwing up the country.
The terroist war isn't about oil its a bunch of fundamentalist Islamic jihadists that want to kill everyone that isn't a muslim. I doubt your hunting with a towel around you head so that includes you, assuming you don't do your hunting off a camel :lol:


----------



## buckseye

Hey Bobm I guess I just don't like the idea of being in the history books of the future as being in the group of people that have lived on this planet and used up resources that didn't need to be. I feel it is a grave mistake to use what we don't need, especialy when there is no way of replacing it.

Your take on why there is a war just don't float my friend, it's a nice thought tho compared to what is really going on. I have ear flappers and a 4x4 chevy camel that drinks gas instead of water, we will probaly all be back on horseback if these oil mongers don't let up someday and let a little progress happen in the way we produce and use energy. I have always said this and it is very selfish but who ever controls the food and energy of this planet will always be in the business of regulating the production and use of it. :wink:


----------



## Bagman

I feel sorry for anyone who needs some obviously bored loon on a hunting and fishing message board to privide them with the info they think they need to become aware of the political landscape.

BOBM spews the typical narrow minded,bigoted NONSENSE that you can hear on any one of the several ditto headed radio talk shows...minus big Eddie of course. Funny how Ed(a DEM) is about the only talk show host I ever hear who is a PROPONENT of farmers,agriculture,rural America and hunting/fishing and actually TAKES PART in supporting them. Maybe you think people like DICK CHENEY and his pheasant hunts featuring 400 pen raised birds once a year has a good grasp of the outdoors and associated issues?

The easiest way to sway the weak minded simpletons is by SCARE TACTICS and FEAR. The old "Theyre comin for yer guns" babble is about as weak and transparent as it gets. You could be some crank junkie child molester who wears a sheet and cone shaped hat to cross burnings on weekends. NOBODY HERE KNOWS OTHERWISE! The sad thing is that there are always those SHEEP who think simply because something is in print on the web ITS A FACT. This QUOTE is about as blatent and frightening an example as I could ever ask for to make my point!!! : "I guess I like Bobm keeping us abreast of the latest political aspects of our society. I have always said I vote for the lesser of two evils. Like Bobm I don't think we have a choice this fall. Do we want to keep our guns? Do we want to fight terrorists in the streets and cities in Iraq and Afghanistan or New York." :withstupid:

Way to do your homework fella. Good to know folks like you are out there keeping "abreast of the latest political aspects of our society" based on the UNCHALLENGED RANTINGS of some totally ANONYMOUS POSTER on a HUNTING AND FISHING MESSAGE BOARD. Please tell me you havent reproduced and youve had a vasectomy. UFF DA!


----------



## Bobm

Bagman challenge them if you think I'm incorrect. I clearly stated that I think anyone reading what I write should check the facts for themselves and make up their own mind. Your critisism is typical, without substance. But thats ok just keep reading. :lol: I don't want Kerry to be elected and I'm going to keep the facts as I see them in front of everyone so check my facts anytime If I'm incorrect let me know.


----------



## Fetch

Bob here is the best political thing I have heard lately

A teacher in a small Vermont town asks her class how many of them are
John Kerry fans. Not really knowing what a John Kerry fan is, but wanting
to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raise their hands except one boy.
The teacher asks Johnny why he has decided to be different.

Johnny says, "I'm not a John Kerry fan."

The teacher says, "Why aren't you a John Kerry fan?"

Johnny says, "I'm a George Bush fan."

The teacher asks why he's a George Bush fan. The boy says, "Well, my
mom's a George Bush fan and my dad's a George Bush fan, so I'm a
George Bush fan!"

The teacher is kind of angry, because this is Vermont, so she asks, "What
if your Mom was a moron and your Dad was an idiot, what would that
make you?"

Johnny says, "That would make me a John Kerry fan."

__________________

:lol:


----------



## Bobm

Thanks Fetch I laughed out loud in our office reading that one :beer:


----------



## Bobm

In case you have been living under a rock and haven't heard about this, a mob of Islamic terrorists dragged the bodies of four American contractors through the streets of Fallujah yesterday in Iraq, and strung two of them from a bridge. This happened after their SUVs were ambushed in a convoy. Very tragic and sickening.

What is also despicable is how the media is covering this. First of all, in the Associated Press story covering the incident, the cold-blooded killers that did this are referred to as "rebels" (instead of Islamic terrorists) and the liberation of Iraq as the "American occupation." They also immediately compare this to what happened in Somalia. Democratic calls to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible are sure to follow. But we're not going to cut and run this time. The difference? President Bush is in office and Bill Clinton is not. *The current occupant of the White House does not give into terrorists so easily.*

Look for an increase in these attacks. As the coalition gets closer and closer to handing control of Iraq over to its new government Saddam loyalists are going to grow more and more desperate. Middle East despots have a lot to lose if Iraq truly adopts a representative form of government. Iraq has the potential of becoming the dominant political and economic power in that part of the world. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists want none of this ... and they're desperate to prevent it. As you watch the American political season unfold, ask yourself: Who is on the side of freedom for the Iraqi people, and who wants to facilitate their return to live under a dictatorship?

The people who did this need to be located and served with their dirt nap as soon as possible. Oh..and the people who were murdered were providing security for the convoys delivering food to the area. Time for the Iraqis' first American lesson in cause and effect...no more food convoys.

Then maybe they'll change their tune.


----------



## buckseye

Hey bobm 40 years ago and less they were doing that down your way (draggin dead bodies around). I forgot what countries were involved in that war.

My opinion... a human still needs a little bit of survival instinct or they won't be around long, I feel sorry for their families but not them they knew their jobs were dangerous. I have a friend over their workin for some big energy company, he's plenty greedy, hope he makes it back. :sniper:


----------



## Bobm

Buckseye, LAst time I checked we didn't have anybody draggin bodies around in Georgia 40 years ago? The guys they murdered were bringing food in for Iraqis, hows that greedy? I think you need to sleep later! :lol:


----------



## buckseye

It's greedy because there are other lower paying jobs that are less dangerous. Believe me I know, I chased the big money till my back got broke. I guess I watch history to close, altho it is nice to not make the same mistakes over and over.

Sheet bob it was on national news two years ago about some body being dragged around by a car in the US.


----------



## Bobm

Buckseye I guess if your so jaded that you think people getting food to people is just for the money ( and maybe you're correct) but I like to think their are people in this country that are trying to make a difference in this world.
THe body draggin incident was in Texas and it was some stupid racists and I think they got the death penalty ( I hope they did). I hope the US give the death penalty to the bastards in Iraq that did this.
U.S. forces pledged yesterday to strike back with "overwhelming force " against those responsible for the American deaths in Fallujah. Brigadier Gen. Mark Kimmitt warned that "Coalition forces will respond. They are coming back, and they are going to hunt down those responsible for this bestial act. It will be at a time and place of our choosing. It will be methodical, it will be precise, and it will be overwhelming." *Good. But have we been being too nice up to this point?*

The Pentagon has recently employed a strategy of using kid gloves instead of overwhelming force to "win the hearts and minds" of Iraqis. Troops are being put through sensitivity training before they leave for Iraq, so that they avoid doing anything politically incorrect while they are there. *What a waste of time. This is a war, we are overthrowing a government, and there is no time for such niceties. People that would do harm to Coalition troops are going to hate us no matter what, so it's time to play a little hardball. *Rather than worry about appearances, how about just explaining the situation in words they understand: do what we say, or we'll kill you. 
Now how about a little gratitude for your liberation?


----------



## buckseye

Hey bob you are right...in war the side that is most violent usually wins, that was a statement from one of the generals in ww2. I hope the Iraqi's can police their own country I guess.

I suppose as long as we have the so called american interest big wigs runnin around over there we will have to protect them arses.

Oh man the weather has been great up here for a week already, most of the snow is gone in the open, but the sheltered areas are still full. I hope this nice weather stays. Saw some sandhill cranes yesterday.


----------



## Bobm

70's and sunny down here the last couple weeks I'll try to send some your way :lol:


----------



## Bobm

First .. you need to know who Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is. Zuniga has a website known as the Daily Kos. This site seems quite popular among leading leftists and Democrats*. He also has close ties to Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe.* You will also find Democratic organizations and candidates advertising on the Daily Kos. *These include the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the Draft Kerry - Edwards committee*, Jane Mitakides, a Democratic congressional candidate from Ohio, and others.

Now that you know a little about the Daily Kos, let's read what Markos Zuniga posted on his website last week after four American contractors were killed in Fallujah, and their burned bodies hung from a bridge:

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

Nice, huh. Screw them. They were there to wage war for profit. The truth is that these four men were attempting to provide security for a delivery of food to the residents of Fallujah. This is what this loyal Democrat calls waging war for profit.  *Four Americans killed providing security for a humanitarian effort. Democrats say "screw them."*
Thanks to James Taranto at Opinion Journal for bringing this to our attention.

Another proud day for Democrats!


----------



## dosch

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?i ... N=25763309


----------



## Bobm

The fact that our intelligence has been weakened over the last 30 years is somehow Powells fault? In fact the whole world thought he was right including the UN. I guess we can really thank Jimmy Carter and 40 plus years of a Democrat congress. They successfully weakened our intelligence capabilities.


----------



## dosch

bobby

Take your medicine and go back to bed our we'll put you in a nursing home. Lakota maybe so you & fetch could play bingo.

And for the Carters how bout that "billy beer"


----------



## Bobm

Dosch, getting old sure beats the alternative :lol: 
*Some more facts for your liberal young mind!*
You are former president Bill Clinton. Your chief anti-terrorism guy, *Richard Clarke, says that Al Qaeda was an absolute top priority during the final years of your term*. In fact, Richard Clarke writes a book and testifies under oath telling everyone who will listen how focused you were on Al Qaeda while you were president.

So .. it's the end of your eight years in the White House. December, 2000. You are writing a report detailing your views on the major security threats facing the United States as you leave office. *The report, which Richard Clarke helped you write, is 45,000 words long. *That would be 168 pages using Microsoft Word, and if published as a book it would be about 220 pages long. Now that's quite a lot of words describing what you think are the major security concerns the next president needs to be aware of. *And guess what? In all of those 45,000 words you don't mention the name "Al Qaeda" even one time. *The greatest security concern facing America; isn't that what Richard Clarke said? And you don't even mention it one time in your report? Richard Clarke says that Condi Rice looked confused when he mentioned Al Qaeda ... but he didn't manage to get any reference to Al Qaeda included in your final report on security threats?

What do you expect the American people to think? No ... wait. I'll tell you what they think. They think Richard Clarke was lying. They think he lied when he said that Al Qaeda was one of your top national security priorities. Now, after hearing this about your final report, they not only think Richard Clarke was lying, *now they know he was lying.*Nice going.


----------



## dosch

salty C & b's


----------



## Bobm

*The only 9/11 suspect ever convicted walked out of jail yesterday*, :******: :******: :******: freed by the German government after serving only 2 1/2 years of a 15-year sentence. Mounir el-Motassadeq's conviction on charges of aiding the plotters of the 9/11 attacks on the United States was overturned last month after the U.S. refused to give lawyers access to an Al-Qaeda suspect in our custody. The highest court in Germany said this prevented a fair trial for our friend the poor Islamic terrorist. You've got to be kidding me. *This guy has acknowledged training at an Al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and being close friends with three of the 9/11 hijackers. What a lame excuse....they're letting him walk on a technicality*.

What's going on here is that the anti-American axis of weasels countries like Germany are more concerned with the rights of mass-murdering Islamic terrorists than they are the safety and security of their "friends" like the United States. Not only are they not helping us in Iraq, but we can't even count on them to handle an open and shut case like this against an admitted terrorist and follower of Osama Bin Laden. *And Kerry wants to turn the war on terror over to the United Nations?*
Thanks for nothing. What a bunch of spineless Euro-weenies.


----------



## Bobm

Get ready for the Condoleezza Rice media circus. Today President Bush's National Security Adviser goes before the 9/11 Commission to publicly to lay out the facts of what the administration was doing in the months leading up to the attacks. Her opening statement is expected to be about 20 minutes long, and while the White House has not released the text, it is expected to be a barnburner. Of course, before she has spoken a single word, the media and the Democrats are already attacking. Rice is not planning to apologize for the attacks on 9/11. This is already causing a stir, but *the White House is correctly pointing out that only the terrorists are responsible for what happened on 9/11*.

Already we are seeing headlines that her testimony "may not be enough" to save Bush's re-election. Excuse me...I didn't know Bush's re-election needed saving. All polls are showing Bush either even with Kerry or ahead. And besides....the election is 7 months away. Idiots. She is also going to be grilled by the "nonpartisan" (yeah right) commission over the testimony of Richard Clarke. But why? He has already publicly contradicted himself...why should she be expected to answer for that?

And lastly...Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has weighed in...warning Dr. Rice that she should tell the truth. "It's important for her to be as truthful and forthcoming as possible. Nobody could give the commission a more precise understanding of what happened and why." Oh really? The Bush administration was in office 7 1/2 months before 9/11, and the Clinton administration had 8 years. Why would she have the ultimate explanation for what happened and why? Wasn't it President Clinton that failed to act after several Al-Qaeda attacks?

It doesn't matter what she says, or how she says it. When it comes to the liberals and Bush-hating buddies in the media, nothing will ever be enough.

*And just why do I love it so when Teddy Kennedy goes out there campaigning for John Kerry? *Because he may well be one of the best weapons President Bush has. Earlier this week Kennedy was saying that Iraq was going to be George Bush's Vietnam. Today that pudgy little radical Islamic "cleric" Muqtada al-Sadr was saying the same thing. This stuff is priceless folks. *Kennedy launches a broadside against Bush, and the people who are trying to kill our soldiers in Iraq parrot it the next day*. Kerry then follows up the statements of Kennedy and al-Sadr by calling al-Sadr a "legitimate voice" in Iraq.  Only 1% of the Iraqi people consider al-Sadr to be their voice, but Kerry has decided to give him the patina of a legitimate voice for all of Iraq. And, of course, we already know just how legitimate Kerry thinks Kennedy is. Now we just add the America-hating terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr to that list. Kennedy and al-Sadr, campaign point men for John Kerry. And none of this costs the Bush campaign a dime. :lol: :lol:

By the way .. in case I haven't had a chance to say this today; Kennedy is a vile, repugnant slug who, when he moves around the Senate floor, leaves a sticky trail behind him ... somewhat like a slug. And I'm being kind here.

Golly ... I'm having such a hard time expressing how I really feel today.


----------



## Bobm

For two days the Washington Post has been reporting that the August 6,2001 Presidential Daily Briefing memo -- the one recently declassified by the White House -- "... warned [President Bush] a month before September 11, 2001 attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan."

*There's a problem here. That problem is that the August 6 memo doesn't say what the Washington Post says it says. Not even close.  *The memo mentions that some suspects had been casing federal office buildings in New York. Not one mention of Manhattan, and no mention that any building in New York might be the target of a hijacked airliner.

Isn't it clear what's going on here? The Washington Post is reporting -- in two successive news stories on two successive days -- that President Bush was warned specifically that terrorists were going to hijack airliners and target a building in lower Manhattan ... the location of the World Trade Towers. They are presenting the facts this way because they know that the majority of Americans haven't read the actual PDB, and, furthermore, the majority of Americans are very unlikely to learn the truth about those memos. The goal here is to twist the truth so that millions of Americans will come to believe that Bush had a specific warning, and ignored it.

I can tell you where this is going to go. Six months from now, just before the November election, people will be swearing that they read somewhere that George Bush had a memo in front of him a month before 9/11 telling him just what the terrorists were going to do, and where they were going to do it. *The fact that what the Washington Post reported is a lie will be lost. What they reported will not.*

CEASE FIRE?

It's another day cease fire in Fallujah. Evidently the Iraqi Governing Council has talked the US military into ceasing fire so that Iraqis don't become even more angry at Americans. While US troops sit around observing the cease fire, they watch insurgent forces fortify their positions inside Fallujah.

*The hell with this. This whole cease fire bit is being viewed by Iraqis and Islamic fanatics as nothing but another sign of weakness*. The end result will be more violence, more actions against American troops. Press the issue ... continue the campaign in Fallujah. Show no weakness, show no lack of resolve. That is the way to defeat al-Sadr and his goons. We're paying the price right now for the compassion American forces have shown over the past several months. It's time to convince the Islamofascist Jihadists that America means business. :******:

BLAMING THE VICTIMS  

Remember those four civilian contractors who were killed in Fallujah about ten days ago? Their bodies were mutilated, drug through the streets and hung from a bridge. What were these four men doing when they were attacked? They were providing security for a shipment of food to the citizens of Fallujah.

*Well ... guess who's to blame for their death? Evidently they were to blame. At least that's the feeling you get from a recent memo that Democrats Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton sent to Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld*. Hillary and Daschle wrote that these civilian contractors were nothing less than a "private army" and that the Defense Department needs to do a better job of screening and controlling the actions of such people in Iraq.

Oh ... and by the way. Neither The Hildabeast nor Tom Daschle had any suggestions on what should be done with or to the Iraqis who killed these men. It was their fault, you see. They just weren't being properly controlled by the Pentagon.

IS THIS HOW THE CLINTONS WILL DEFEAT KERRY?

Your intrepid Talkmaster has long said that the Clintons will find some way to torpedo the candidacy of John Kerry. Say what you will, but there are two big-time Democrats who do not want to see Kerry win in November ... and their names are Bill and Hillary. They are purportedly related, but only on paper and by virtue of the fact that they are the sire and dam of one 20-something female.

The Clintons know that if Kerry wins in November he will surely run again in 2008. That is unacceptable to the Clintons. Hillary is supposed to be the Democratic candidate in 2008, not John Kerry. In order for Hillary to run in 2008 in an open election, with no incumbent on the ballot, Kerry must lose.

This brings us to Bill Clinton's much-awaited memoirs. Democrats are starting to voice their concerns that Clinton will publish his memoirs at the precise time John Kerry will be campaigning for the attention of the American people. In other words, Democrats are afraid that Clinton's book will suck all of the attention away from Kerry's candidacy.

Clinton is promising that the book will come out well before the Democratic convention. Let's see.

FYI

If you listen to John Kerry you come away with the impression that it is Americans, and only Americans who are fighting in Iraq. Well, in case you're wondering, here is a list of countries that presently have troops serving in Iraq.

Albania, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine.

So .. just what is John Kerry's definition of an "international coalition?"

By the way ... Kerry has already tried his hand at international diplomacy. He tried to get Spain's new prime minister to keep his troops in Iraq. He failed.

*BILL CLINTON'S FBI DIRECTOR SAYS HIS BOSS FAILED ON TERRORISM*

FBI Director Louis Freeh, appointed by President Clinton, has written an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal suggesting that the Clinton administration's response to Al-Qaeda was inadequate. Mr. Freeh testifies today before the 9/11 Commission. This should be a good one.

Freeh goes on to say that the FBI did all that it could to stop terrorists with the tools that it had. Because terrorism was being treated as a law enforcement problem, Freeh describes how the warrant for Osama Bin Laden's arrest was simply a piece of paper. It wasn't until war was declared on terrorism and Afghanistan invaded that actually executing the warrant was made possible.

And finally, he makes the point that keeps getting lost over and over again*: the United States lacked the political means and the will of the nation to declare war on terrorism before September 11th. *


----------



## Bobm

"You no doubt saw the headline yesterday that one of the four Italian hostages in Iraq was tragically executed. A videotape of the murder was sent to the Al-Jazeera terrorist television network, and they declined to air it because they said "it was too graphic." How nice of them...not out of respect for the victim's family, but because it was too graphic for TV. Thanks for nothing.

The typical reaction from most liberals and the media, not to mention various other Euro-weenies, would be to fold. People hear about something like this and just want to give in. Not the Italians. This is what you would call leadership, something you don't see from countries like Spain anymore, for instance. The kidnappers are demanding that Italy and its 3,000 troops leave Iraq. Not a chance, says Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. He says the killing of the hostage would not affect their efforts there. This is called standing up for what's right, instead of caving in. We need more allies like this.

You can't negotiate with terrorists...you have to speak their language, which is death and violence. It's a very simple offer: do what we say, or we'll kill you. That should get their attention.

*Nice to see Italy hasn't joined the axis of weasels.*

*OSAMA OFFERS EURO-WEASELS A DEAL. HISTORY SAYS THEY'RE DUMB ENOUGH TO TAKE IT*
The media is making too big a deal of this nonsense this morning. There's a new audio tape out there where the speaker claims to be Osama bin Laden. He promises a truce with Europe ... a truce that will begin when the last European soldier leaves Muslim countries in the Middle East. No such deal for the United States.

On second thought ... maybe the press is making a big deal out of this because of European history! When it comes to appeasement of enemies, the Euro-weenies are hard to beat. If the French had any troops in Iraq they would be the first to take advantage of Osama's generous offer.

*AL-SADR IS PLAYING NICE ALL OF A SUDDEN*

Prominent Shiite "cleric" (terrorist) Moqtadad al-Sadr has now come out and softened his stance. Reportedly, he has dropped all his conditions for negotiations with the Coalition. No longer is he demanding that the Coalition troops have to leave the area before he'll stop his terror campaign. Apparently he is pledging to follow some other cleric named Al Marjeiya, who is apparently the highest Shiite authority. Hard to keep up with all the clerics following the other clerics. Does anybody do anything over there without some cleric telling them what to do? Whatever. Who cares.

The Coalition has said that doesn't matter...they intend to capture or kill al-Sadr for the murder of a pro-American rival last year. Good. Now is not the time to start negotiating with Islamic terrorists. *Why do you suppose this lunatic wants to negotiate all of a sudden? * Because we have him surrounded, that's why. *He's in a position of weakness*, and he knows that casualty-averse elements in the United States and the rest of the world might be ready to take him up on his offer to bargain, but we can't let that happen. We have got to stop being nice..it is not going to be rewarded.

Some in the Iraqi leadership want to compromise with al-Sadr. Forget that noise. This guy is wanted for murder, and if we're going to teach the Iraqis the rule of law, then they need to know that you do not cut deals with murderers.  Besides, the United States and its allies are the occupying force in Iraq. It's time we started acting like it.

*The sooner we capture al-Sadr and send him on his trip to see Allah, the better.* :******:

CLINTON OFFICIAL WON'T LEAVE COMMISSION

Jamie Gorelick, a woman Dick Morris has called the public official "most responsible for 9/11 happening." is refusing to leave her post on the 9/11 Commission. She was the deputy attorney general during the Clinton years, and by all accounts really wore the pants at the justice department. So once again, we have another double standard. Can you imagine the howls of protest if a former Bush official was on this same commission charged with investigating events in which they took part? The media would be jumping up and down, along with Democrats in Congress. As it stands now, hardly a word. Funny how that happens, isn't it?

"Of all the public officials in the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, the one who is most directly, in my judgment, responsible for 9/11 happening is Jamie Gorelick," said Morris, who served in the Clinton administration himself. So what did she do that is causing all the fuss? Well, when Ashcroft recently testified in front of the commission, he pointed out that Gorelick sent out a memo in 1995 setting up a wall between the FBI and the CIA. This prevented investigators from receiving intelligence that may have thwarted the 9/11 plot. Outraged yet? It gets worse.

A specific example is the case of Zacarias Moussaui. He is what people are calling the 20th hijacker. Anyway, he was being pursued on an immigration violation, but as Morris put it, "they couldn't let the intelligence types look at his computer." And just what was on that computer?

The names of some of the September 11th hijackers and the flight schools they attended. Would the 9/11 attacks have happened if the FBI had been able to share that information with the CIA? We may never know, but you tell me..just who should be doing the apologizing? 

Gorelick refuses to step down from the commission, saying there is no conflict of interest. *Yeah right. She's on the wrong side of the table*.


----------



## james s melson

When the NRA gets involved it will be all over for Kerry.


----------



## Bobm

DID you catch Howard Dean on CNN promoting the candidacy of John Kerry. Dean went into this rant about George Bush that was, to say the least, incredible. Incredible because I haven't heard a politician cram so many lies into so little time in quite a while.

Dean said the president was not telling the truth when he said:

"There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, which was not true." 
In fact, it was true. Those connections have now been proven.

"That Saddam Hussein had something to do with terrorism, which was not true." 
Come on, Howard. Saddam was making a big deal of writing checks to the families of suicide bombers. He was harboring terrorists in Baghdad. Ever heard of Abu Nidal?

"When he said in the State of the Union that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Africa, which was not true." 
George Bush never made that statement. Dean is lying, and he knows he's lying. Why didn't the CNN interviewer call him on this?

"When the Vice President said that in Iraq they are accumulating nuclear weapons, which was not true." 
I can find no instance where Cheney said that Iraq was accumulating nuclear weapons, only that Saddam was attempting to do so.

*What a shame it is that Dean imploded*. :lol: What fun he would be as a candidate!


----------



## Bobm

Well, the second consecutive leader of the terrorist group Hamas has been dispatched to the great desert sand nap :beer: by the Israeli military. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, along with two of his bodyguards, bought the farm on Saturday after missiles were fired at his car. :lol: No big loss. It should come as no surprise that Hamas is keeping the identity of their new leader a secret  :lol: :lol: . *It should also not come as a surprise to learn that Israel already knows the name of the new Hamas leader, and has posted it in newspapers.*

As with before, there is an important lesson here for the United States in the war on terror. The only effective response to Islamic terrorism is to destroy the terrorists, plain and simple. These people see negotiations as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to fortify their positions. Israel does this better than anybody. They don't care as much about what the world thinks as they do about the security of their people. Their priority is to find the terrorists and kill them before they kill someone else. Terrorists are like cockroaches...anything less than their total destruction is unacceptable. 

*The outcry over this event is typical...and the double standard is ridiculous. *If a terrorist organization were sending suicide bombers into the population centers of a major city and killing innocent women and children, would it not be proper for that government to destroy the leader of that organization? Not if you're Israel, because after all, we don't want to make the terrorists mad*. On top of that, the linguini-spined liberal losers in the media always take the anti-Israel position. *
SPANISH GAZPACHO-EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS CUT AND RUN

The government of Spain fulfilled the terms of their surrender to Al-Qaeda yesterday and said it will withdraw all 1,400 of its troops from Iraq. Newly sworn in socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero says he is pulling out the troops because the U.N. has not taken control of security arrangements. The U.N., you will remember, ran when the first bomb fell last year. Now those are the people we want in charge of security, right?

Imagine, for just a minute, if they had it their way. That the U.N. was in control in Iraq. First of all, who is the U.N.? Where do those troops come from? By and large, the United States. Do people really think that the Iraqi insurgency is going to end just because the U.N. is in charge of the same troops? I think not. And worse, why would anyone with half a brain want the United States Army under the command and control of the United Nations? It would be a disaster.

*The real reason Spain is pulling out their troops is because they don't have the guts to fight the war on terrorism*. They would rather just fold up and go home. Al Qaeda defeated that entire country with about 15 bombs placed on trains. Apparently nothing is worth fighting for, as their actions after the Madrid bombings show. Appeasement is now their stated policy. Typical Euro-weenies.


----------



## Bobm

Heres something amazing ABC is actually interested in a story the exposes that Darling of the left the UN for what it is maybe there is hope yet.
You are not likely to know much about the United Nations Oil For Food Program unless you listen to talk radio, or watch Fox News Channel or ABC. That's right, ABC. For some reason known but to God, ABC has suddenly decided to pay some attention to this emerging story.

Here are your Cliff notes. Under the terms of various UN resolutions, Saddam Hussein was forbidden from selling his oil. The UN allowed him to sell enough oil, however, to get the money he needed to pay for food and medicine to feed his people. As it turns out Saddam, under the watchful eye of the UN, sold that oil to build palaces and to buy protection.

Saddam, you see, would give some of his favorite politicians vouchers. These vouchers would allow these individuals to sell Iraqi oil and pocket the profits. *Several senior UN officials are implicated, along with more than 270 prominent foreign officials from other countries ... France and Russia included*.

What is the US position on Iraq's oil? *The Bush Administration is determined to see to it that oil profits will be used for the reconstruction of Iraq and the welfare of its people.* Prior to the war several top officials in the UN and in many foreign officials were determined to see to it that these oil profits, or a goodly portion of them, went into their pockets. And the leftist protestors in this country say that Bush sent the troops over there for Iraqi oil. :******:

Back to the vouchers. These vouchers from Saddam to UN officials, and other officials from countries like France, amounted to bribes. When someone bribes someone else, they expect something in return. What was Saddam expecting in return? Protection? He certainly got that, not only from the UN, but from France and Russia. What happens to these people if Saddam gets overthrown? Easy. They get exposed. *Could this possibly be a reason why the governments of France and Russia were so opposed to our actions in Iraq?* Better to leave the Iraqi people to live with their cruel dictator than to be exposed as corrupt, I guess.

Another question. Why is ABC the only major news organization (other than Fox News) that is covering this? Perhaps it is because they feel the American people wouldn't support turning over the Iraqi reconstruction and the formation of a new government to an organization identified with corruption and scandal. *John Kerry has repeatedly favored turning the Iraqis plight over to the UN  talk about letting the Fox watch the hen house!*


----------



## Niles Short

GOLLY GOSH I MUST BE A TERROIST, Because I perfer Kerry and the Democrats. I try to avoid your posts bobm, but every now and then I need some humour from the institutionalized. signed the ********* of the North Dakota Plains


----------



## Bobm

Niles your post would only make sense if I said terrorists were the only people that preferred Kerry. Terrorists love appeasers like the UN and the Euroweenies that Kerry wants to rely on. Niles heres some more reasons to like Kerry. ( Kerry makes this too easy :lol: ) 
It looks like John Kerry has been caught in another lie. The Drudge Report is stating that ABC's Good Morning America will spill the beans today on whether or not John Kerry ever told the American people that it was his medals he threw away at a protest in 1971. If you go to Kerry's website you will see the following statement. Just in case the Kerry people remove it from the website ... here it is faithfully copied and pasted:



> Throwing Vietnam Medals
> UPDATED 4.23.04
> RIGHTWING FICTION: John Kerry threw away his medals during a Vietnam war protest.
> 
> FACT: John Kerry is proud of the work he did to end the Vietnam war. The Nixon Administration made John Kerry one of its targets and Kerry's rightwing opponents have been smearing him ever since. John Kerry threw his ribbons and the medals of two veterans who could not attend the event, and said "I am not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all." [Tour of Duty, Douglas Brinkley]


Well, it seems that ABC has a tape of a John Kerry interview made in 1971, shortly after the protest, in which Kerry boasts of throwing away his medals, not someone else's. Kerry's exact words? "I gave back, I can't remember, 6, 7, 8, 9 medals." So .. Kerry's website says that the charge that he said he threw away his medals is a "right wing fiction." He told Peter Jennings that the idea he threw away his medals was a "myth." Then ... there he is, 33 years ago, saying that he gave back his Bronze Star, his Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts. Then he says ".. and above that, _ gave back the others."

*What we have here is a succession of lies*. First he says he threw away his medals. Then he says he didn't throw away his medals when union officials criticized the action. Then he said he threw away his ribbons and not his medals. Then he says he would have thrown away his medals, but he didn't have time to go back to New York and get them from his home. So, what is the truth? The truth is that Kerry will say whatever he needs to say at any given point in time in order to gain the greatest political acceptance and support from whomever he happens to be speaking to.

And just what did John Kerry have to say this morning when he was interviewed by Charles Gibson? He said that this is all being pushed by the Republicans who can't even prove that George Bush showed up for his National Guard service. Yeah ... that's the way to handle this. :lol: You divert the attention from the story about your medals ... and try to focus again on George Bush's service in the National Guard. Kerry says that George Bush "has yet to tell the truth" about his service in the National Guard. You should have heard the interview. Kerry was in full panic mode. He was caught .. nailed ... and he knew it. Not a good day for Kerry.

Here's a question. *What is more amazing here: That Kerry would lie, or that ABC News would actually expose the lie?* Actually, ABC has been on a role of late. First they busted the U.N. Oil-For-Food scam and now they're taking on the Kerry campaign. Unbelievable.
I love it :beer:_


----------



## Niles Short

:eyeroll: yes i saw that Olympic medal throwing debate contest aired while I was typing the last response.

Just remember this; Kerry served, fought, and recieved medals while in Nam........... and Bush???...........and Bush????


----------



## Bobm

*Kerry served for only 4 months, insisted to be awarded purple hearts for minor scratches (that his commanding officer now claims were dubious) so he could qualify for the three purple hearts so he( KERRY) got to flee the war and go back to the US. *HE then became the anti war demonstrator that threw those medals over the wall. Which makes sense *because kerry knew better than anyone that the medals were meaningless* in his case and that he didn't really earn them they way they are intended to be earned. Of course consistant with Kerrys lack of integrity he now can't even tell the truth about whether he threw them away or not. His story changes every time he tells it depending on who hes talking to. *The real telling part of the story is Kerry's refusal to release his army medical records 
( something the Democrats insisted Bush do and Bush complied). He won't release his medical records because if he does the whole country will see that his medals were a way to flee Vietnam and that he is even a phony about that. * There were a lot of brave Democrats that served honorably in Nam, Kerry wasn't one of them. The Democrats should of picked Liberman or some other nominee that is honest.


----------



## Bobm

THE SHI'ITE HITS THE FAN IN IRAQ

The Islamic terrorists in Iraq are finally getting the message, and a very forceful one delivered by the United States Marines. It's about time isn't it? As we speak, our boys are stacking up dead insurgents in Fallujah and Najaf. Maybe they'll reconsider the offer next time to turn in their weapons first.

The official Pentagon line continues to be that this is not a new push in Fallujah against the insurgents, but rather just a case of the Marines defending themselves. Whatever...it should be a new push...and a big one. How about this: we surround the city, give women and children 48 hours to leave, then unleash the full wrath and fury of the United States military down on their Islamic terrorist heads. That would take care of the "insurgency" problem, would it not? Instead, Sheiks from across Iraq are headed there today for more worthless negotiations.

Meanwhile, in Najaf, where the Spanish gazpacho-eating surrender monkeys recently departed, real progress is being made. Seven fighters from al-Sadr's militia were roasted after opening fire on a U.S. patrol (bad idea) and 57 more militiamen were killed in a later clash. Good...this is what these people understand. The only way they are going to stop causing trouble is if we respond with overwhelming lethal force.

It used to be official U.S. policy that we didn't negotiate with terrorists...apparently somebody has changed their mind.


----------



## Bobm

TERRORIST LOVING LIBERALS CALLING FOR RUMSFELD'S HEAD

Democrats are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Kerry, of course, and super-leftist Nancy Pelosi. Hyper-partisan Charles Rangel is even calling for an impeachment. So, here's your question: 
Democrats are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation because they believe such a resignation would : 
*(a) *Improve our chances of accomplishing our goals of creating a free, and independent Iraq
*(b) *Improve Democrat's chances of defeating Bush in November. 
If you answered (a) you are beyond all hope of help of any kind.

This started off with Kerry demanding Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation over the Iraqi prison photos, and now it has spread to other Democrats. This is not about addressing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, this is about crippling George Bush and doing everything possible to advance his misfortune. 
The rhetoric here is out of control. I saw Ann Applebaum, a member of the Washington Post editorial board, say this morning that Donald Rumsfeld had made a decision to ignore the rules of the Geneva Convention and had also made a decision to "create a lawless prison system." Remember ... Applebaum will be voting for Kerry in November.

Rumsfeld goes before the Senate Armed Services Committee today, and you can expect fireworks. Democratic Senators John Corzine, Joe Biden and Tom Harkin are also on the list of Democrats saying Rumsfeld should be fired. What for? Was Donald Rumsfeld the one taking the Iraqi abuse pictures? Did he not take appropriate action once it was discovered? What possible reason would there be for him to quit? None...zippo. It's as preposterous to suggest that he resign as it would be to suggest any other member of the cabinet do so. It's apparently the new mantra of the left....when they don't like a Republican official in government....they demand his or her resignation! After all, somebody must be to blame! It can't just be a few bad apples in the ranks.
*Let me tell you what this is not about. It is not about winning the war in Iraq. It is not about bringing terrorists to justice. It is not about protecting America from Islamic terrorism. It's all about defaming and damaging the credibility of George Bush and putting the Democrats back into the White House.*
Bush has said he supports Rumsfeld, and he will remain in the cabinet. The Democrats are going to come unglued today. Get ready. What fun. :lol:

The Islamic world is doing a spectacular job of expressing outrage over the humiliation of some Iraqi prisoners. Now let's see if they can bring it upon themselves to crank up some of that outrage over the atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists.  :******: 
[*b]One of the Iraqi prisoners *who was abused by U.S. reservists says he is so humiliated he can't return to his hometown. So, he wants to come live in the United States. Think about this for a minute. This Iraqi is abused by Americans. As a result of that abuse he wants to go live in America. Damn ... we are one evil, horrible country, aren't we?[/b]


----------



## Bobm

For decades, there has been a long-standing tradition that former presidents don't criticize their successors, especially on matters of national security. Unfortunately, Slick Willie has thrown that out the window. The reason? Of course, it's his new book coming out this summer. He needs to make some headlines and get back in the news! *And Kerrys campaign needs to be buried under an avalanche of Bill-news, if Hilary is going to have a run at the White House.* And an all-too willing mainstream media is right there at his beck and call.

When the first President Bush left office after being defeated, he refused for years to criticize Clinton, citing tradition. What a class act. Too bad Clinton can't return the favor, because now he's jumped squarely onto the Bush-bashing train. Yet another liberal Democrat trashing the Commander In Chief during a time of war. Think a Republican would be able to get away with that? Of course not.

Clinton's big complaint? In a speech on Tuesday, he repeated the same nonsense about how the Bush administration wasted the goodwill bestowed on us by the rest of the world after 9/11 on the invasion of Iraq. Like always, he failed to mention that we won the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq was merely the next terrorist haven on the list. It's also an outrage that he is criticizing Bush for carrying out the same policy he supported during his 8 years in office: regime change in Iraq. * That's right...it was the stated policy of the Clinton administration that Saddam be removed. Clinton just didn't have the guts to do it. George W. Bush does. *
He also whined about how Bush has made the euro-weenies mad by rejecting the nuclear test ban treaty and not signing the Kyoto accord (despite other countries not signing it either.) He also repeated the lie that there is not a shred of evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, when we know the truth to be otherwise. Clinton also complained that the war in Iraq came without the approval of the United Nations. That, of course, is just plain factually incorrect.  But wait...didn't he drag us into the war in Kosovo without United Nations approval? What a phony.

*President Bush will defend the United States of America from the terrorist bastards that chopped off Nick Berg's head. Kerry and his buddies like Clinton will beg for a permission slip from the United Nations. Which will make you sleep better at night?*


----------



## MSG Rude

Niles Short said:


> :eyeroll: yes i saw that Olympic medal throwing debate contest aired while I was typing the last response.
> 
> Just remember this; Kerry served, fought, and recieved medals while in Nam........... and Bush???...........and Bush????


Niles Short,

I too have served in war and am still serving Active Duty. I have received numorous medals in both war and peace and _THE_ medals mean more to me then ANYTHING. No matter what this country does, my medals will always hold a special meaning to me because.....[/b]I EARNED EVERY ONE OF THEM* and I would never through them away for *ANY* reason.*


----------



## Wyoming Willie

I trust Bush to protect America in times of attack 100000000x more than I trust Kerry to do *anything* other than call a meeting and get opinions, possibly from his new love-buddy, Gen Wesley Clark. (Moosejaw Kerry stated, and I quote, " I feel real affection for this man.")

Theres something wrong with this guy Kerry, but those that vote for him wont be able to see that until after they have elected him in, and even then, they will deny it. I offer Clinton as a prime example of repeated stupidity and mass denial.


----------



## jacks

SFC, have you taken any anger management classes?


----------



## MSG Rude

Nope. This is my therapy. Besides, I seem to recall someone else with a stronge voice of opinion. Pot-Kettle-Black.

PS Unlike some, I can NOT handle stupidity. You can teach someone with ignorance but there is no cure for stupidity.


----------



## cootkiller

Maybe it is just me. Maybe I am just "too young" or "too ignorant" as Boobm puts it. But is anyone else really sick of his lengthy rants around here. He goes on about how knowlegeabe he is and how he knows EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. I am starting to think that he is not actually that intelligent, just senile. Hey bob, do you have alzheimer's? Just curious, because you nomadic ramblings are sometimes hard to comprehend as they tend to sound like a broken record.

Also, all of this 'FACT' that you claim you found. Come on, you are basically quoting editorials and columnists quotes that are based on OPINION.

Boobm, this is an outdoors website where most of us used to like discussing and or arguing about outdoors issues, not about how smart and important you think that you are.

The fact of the matter is both bush and kerry suck, just like most election years we are forced to pick the lesser of two evils.
I would rather concentrate on hunting and fishing than try to talk to a closeminded ignoramis like yourself.

Come on guys, let's get back to what this site is about, ND outdoors, not Georgia Blowhards.
Boobm., Have you even been to ND in the last 5 years, or ever for that matter.

COOTKILLER FOR PRESIDENT 2012 (at least then you would have a North Dakotan in office) :beer: 
I won't be eligible for a few more years. But Dan Buiede will be my running mate and we will run on the Hunting Party ticket.

cootkiller


----------



## jacks

SFC said "Nope. This is my therapy. Besides, I seem to recall someone else with a stronge voice of opinion. Pot-Kettle-Black. " 
Good comeback. Didn't mean anything bad by it I thought I met you at some of my meetings. J/K

Coot, there is nothing wrong with talking about politics on this forum. If you don't like the thread ignore it.


----------



## Wyoming Willie

The fact of the matter, is, Coot, that its YOUR opinion that Bush sucks. Its not fact, its OPINION.

 If the foo ****s, wear it.


----------



## Bobm

Coot I apologize for getting on you so hard but you, not I, am the one that demanded my source for the for the WMD story and if I embarrassed you by producing it , I meant no harm. A news story about a factual event on the BBC which is one of the worlds most respected news agencies is not a opinion as you claim. You are the one that uses opinion based on emotion not I, mine is based on a carefully researched factual news stories, although you are correct we are all at the medias mercy at some level.
I never claimed to know "everything about everything" and don't "go on" as you claim about how knowledgeable I am, I "go on" about the topic I'm discussing. You provoked me by insinuating I was making the Story up and I guess I overreacted by calling you a dunce which I don't think you are. 
You're no more politically ignorant than I was at your age, maybe smarter. You might think I'm obnoxious because my point of view is contrary to many of the things you believe are fact and to be honest with you I felt the same way you do about many of these issues when I was your age. Maybe the day will come when some of your takes on these issues are different as well, only time will tell. I will tell you this I'm an honest man and would not lie to make my point. I admit I want to sway everyone I can to support the war and because I recognize the war and terrorist activity as the biggest threat to US security in my lifetime since the Soviet Union. My love of soldiers comes from being a medic and caring for them knowing firsthand what they are sacrificing, out of 130,000 plus troops we have a few bad actors and every liberal mouth piece in the media has siezed on it to malign them and their effort because of a percieved opportunity for political advantage. For the sake of our country and especially our troops we all need to show the rest of the world we are united in this effort. Right now all the members of congress are manuevering for political gain on both sides of the aisle and it makes me sick. Congress can fight about all the other political issues after all our soldiers are back here safe, not now. The terroists are taking comfort from it just like the North Vietnamese did in my generation. I guess history has to keep repeating itself but I would hope that we citizens could influence our congressman to show a united front until this thing's over. I'm not thrilled with most of Bush's domestic policies but those issues pale in comparison to the importance of the war in Iraq and the need to defeat the islamic Jihadist. I believe that Kerry will not handle this the way it should be handled, and so far Bush has. Contrary to what you think I'm not a diehard republican and If Senator Zell Miller ( Dem Georgia) were running I would support him, and it has nothing to do with the fact he's from Ga. He is a man who is honest and not politcally correct. Once again I'd like to apologize for getting snotty with you, I realize it did nothing but alienate you further from looking at these issues with an open mind and really researching them and I didn't want to do that.


----------



## MSG Rude

jacks & Bobm,

Jacks = :beer: Good to go.

Bobm = Well thought out and said.


----------



## Bobm

This is the sleeper story on terroism, I find interesting and scary  
WHAT'S GOING ON WITH SYRIA and why isn't our news media really looking into it??

First ... let me ask you this question. If we discovered that Syria was not only hiding some of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons, but was producing some of its own, what would we do about it? What should we do about it? The Bush doctrine is, *or was, *no country that cozies up to terrorists will be permitted to develop or to possess weapons of mass destruction. Good doctrine? Damned right it's a good doctrine. It's a bold commitment such as that that will possibly save us from the horror of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack in one of our major cities. That doctrine, though, has been weakened. Severely weakened. It has been weakened by the constant partisan hammering of the Democrats who are far more dedicated to the cause of winning the White House in November than they are fighting terrorism.

Let's go back a few weeks. Remember that huge explosion in Korea? At first we heard that thousands were killed. That number was eventually reduced to hundreds. The explosion, however, was huge. North Korean authorities are trying to float a story that it was fertilizer. Are you buying that? *Now we learn that there were technicians from Syria on that train .. and that these technicians were accompanying some unidentified equipment. The damage from the explosion was greatest in that portion of the train carrying the equipment from Syria*. Reports in Japanese newspapers say that North Korean military personnel arrived soon after the explosion and removed materials, but only from the Syrian portion of the train. The soldiers doing this work were *wearing protective suits.*
Who were the Syrian technicians? They were from the Syrian agency viewed as the center of Syria's WMD program.

*This event should be setting off all types of alarms. Why Syrian techs in North Korea? What were they carrying on that train? Why did it explode? What's with the protective suits? Is Syria helping North Korea build some ugly weapons? Or is it the other way around? *

I honestly believe that our ability to protect this country from an attack by Islamic terrorists using weapons that will kill tens of thousands has been severely restricted by the irrational hatred of George Bush that is manifested in Democratic Party election politics. Things are a bit rough right now in Iraq. How much better might things be going if Iraqis knew that the entire American political community, both left and right, Republicans and Democrats, was united behind an absolute determination to stay there until Iraq became a safe, secure, free nation with a popularly elected government. The Iraqi people have been looking for a signal of that determination ... and they see powerful politicians like Ted Kennedy invoking the name of Vietnam. America surrendered and lost in Vietnam .. and the world knows it. Iraqis know it. When Ted Kennedy and his Democratic sycophants say "Vietnam" Iraqis hear "America will abandon us again." How many Americans have died because of Kennedy's partisanship? How many Iraqis have withheld support and information because they feel they will be left to deal with the consequences when America bails out?

And just what do the Syrians and North Koreans have up their sleeves? Do we still have the national nerve to find out?


----------



## MN Fisher

Bobm ~

Very interesting reading. I read it all from start to finish. And well I may not agree with everything, it was still interesting. It is refreshing to see someone willing to passionately talk about politics today as it has become a taboo subject.

It is truely great to have this kind of freedom of speech to say anything any time and not get in real trouble, and pissing people off is not real trouble.

Good work, Bobm, it takes time and thought to write the way you do.

:beer:


----------



## Wyoming Willie

and why are we pulling our troops out of So Korea now?

Very interesting timing, after all these years, for it to be done now.


----------



## Bobm

If you were listening to talk radio yesterday, or if you happened to be watching Fox News Channel, they you learned that Iraqi insurgents tried to use an artillery shell containing Sarin gas in a roadside explosive devise. A small amount of the deadly gas was released and a few American troops were treated for exposure.

There are two interesting aspects to this story. As of late yesterday afternoon, the "so called mainstream" media was virtually ignoring the find. Second, the appeasement crowd was quick to try to downplay the significance of the find.
I don't think that the media is going to be able to completely ignore this story, but they sure will try to downplay it. *Remember the template: If the story benefits Bush, downplay. If the story hurts Bush ... run it hard. That's why the Nick Berg beheading had such a short lifetime, while the prison abuse story is still on the front pages today*.

As for the appeasement crowd? Well, it didn't take long. Up until now the cry was that we had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now that some of those weapons have been discovered (mustard gas last week -- didn't hear about that one either, did you/), the appeasement crowd is saying that these are just isolated old weapons being found ... and it doesn't mean there's a stockpile somewhere. No matter what we find...Hans Blix and his terrorist-appeasing, dictator-loving, Saddam apologist friends at the U.N. will never admit we were right. After all, to them, Saddam could do no wrong. It's all our fault, you know. 
Just great. Last week the charge was that no WMDs were found. This week Blix is saying that no "stockpile" has been found. Find some more weapons and we can argue with the weenies over just what the definition of "stockpile" is. Pathetic.

Oh yeah ... and you're also going to hear that this was an old shell. Not a new one. The theory here, I guess, is that only new WMDs count, not the old ones. Once they start finding new WMDs in Iraq the left will come up with another excuse.

One thing is for certain. The leftist argument that Saddam didn't have any WMDs is now dead. What's next?


----------



## buckseye

Hey Bobm....interesting as always. I have an idea, why doesn't our government do forensic testing on the Kurds bodies they found in the mass graves? They should be able to tell what killed them and prove once and for all Iraq had WMD and used them too.


----------



## Bobm

I'm sure they probably could do that but there really isn't anyone contesting that Saddam used them, no one credible anyway. Which really makes you wonder why there was so much BS about the issue, its all politics.


----------



## Bobm

Buckseye I read this one the Wall street journals site its relevant.


> "Though it gets little attention, the Iraq Survey Group that is searching for WMD has also found warehouses full of commercial and agricultural chemicals. *Mixed and packaged properly, those could quickly become chemical weapons, *and Saddam had no a legitimate need for so much pesticide. Survey Group head Charles Duelfer has testified to Congress that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the raw materials that would have allowed him to produce such weapons on a moment's notice once the international pressure was off. Insight magazine also reported this month that, in Karbala in central Iraq, *U.S. forces found 55-gallon drums of pesticide, some of which were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex." The alleged agricultural site just happened to be located alongside a military ammunition dump.*
> 
> Our own view( meaning the wall street journals') has long been that the case for deposing Saddam was strong enough whether or not we found "stockpiles" of WMD. But just because we haven't found everything that the CIA anticipated doesn't mean it still isn't a threat.


Just goes to show you how little you here about stuff like this if you don't dig for the info on your own.


----------



## seabass

I didn't "dig into the info" too hard here... but, my dad is a farmer and has pesticides...and he isn't charged by the WSJ for chemical weapons. I'm not saying whether or not Saddam did or didn't, but how does the WSJ know Iraq had no legitimate need for pesticides? A quick google search shows this:
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461526621_ ... _Iraq.html

This is more of a post on information sources than anything...


----------



## Wyoming Willie

Yep, we dont want bugs getting into their sand...might ruin next years crop. That and those dreaded oil chiggers!!

:eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm

Seabass maybe your just kidding but just in case your really that naive I can assure you, if your dad used poison gas to kill thousands of people and had the ingredients to make the gas, and the ingredients were much greater than use on his farm warranted he would be getting scrutiny and rightfully so.


----------



## seabass

Maybe a bit naive but definitely skeptical... It's hard to take much stock in the Wall Street Journal's reporting of a barn of pesticides being weapons of mass destruction at this point. Bush went to war on the premise that Iraq was a grave and gathering threat to the U.S. because they harbored weapons of mass destruction that could be unleashed at a moments notice. Most Americans are to the point where they need some solid proof. In hindsight, it is hard to believe that Iraq was more dangerous with the U.N. combing the countryside, hills, and research facilities than it is now. ...or really, ever will be. Islamic fundamentalists sadly will not be going away and, actually, seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

I'm not overly partisan and I'll admit I could be swayed into thinking this war is working out but at this point I feel that most Americans need to hear facts (real pictures, research and scientific data about caches WMD's, how they were to be deployed, etc.) from Powell, Rice, or Bush himself. No silly republican rhetoric from the Wall Street Journal (who obviously have stakes in Bush getting re-elected) about their findings. We might as well ask Halliburton:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0510-09.htm

The sarin shell is a step in the right direction for providing proof:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=564882004


----------



## Bobm

Garry Kasparov the world champion chess player from Russia has an interesting article on terrorism heres the link.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110005100


----------



## Bobm

Seabass if you are willing to give a man who gassed thousands of his own citizens the benefit of the doubt, that speaks to your judgement. It will come as no surprise I would not. 
And the assertion that every bad thing said about Saddam and terrorists is a "republican adjenda, oil related ect" is just as naive. Explain to me how having Iraq capable of producing oil hurts Iraq or our country anyway, what sense does that make? 
The media and even threads on this site are screaming about fuel shortages driving up prices now, how is it only a republican interest that we have lower fuel costs? What do you Democrats put in your fuel tank? And the BS everybody always says about Haliburton is another stupid cliche. *Do you realize there is only two companies in the word that are capable of doing the work in the Iraq oil fields Haliburton an American company and Slumberge a French company which one do you want to profit from our freeing Iraq*? The French haven't helped in fact they have impeded our efforts.


----------



## seabass

Well, what ever would we do without Halliburton then! Maybe have the U.S. govt. do the job? Yah think? Why hire out to the company that financially supports the president's candidacy? Read my link above! Which would cost the taxpayers more?

The world IS better with Hussein gone. No doubt. But are we safer now?

By the way, can't get to your article because it requires registration/subscription with the WALL STREET JOURNAL


----------



## Bobm

The idea that the government could do the things Haliburton is doing is just not realistic especially requarding oil related work which is Halburtons specialty. I' ll give you that Ralph Nader makes some excellent points about waste in his article but a lot of it is his BS as well. And your comment comment about hiring a company that supports the presidents candidacy is irrelevant they all do and Nader states that in his article. I'll be the first to agree that there is inefficiencies in government which is exactly why special contrators should be used. There are very few things the goverment does better than the private sector. The oversight of them is where the system falls down and that is the governments fault not the contractors isn't it? 
I don't know why you can't use the link I don't have a subscription all I did was gave them my e-mail address.


----------



## seabass

I think you are missing the point: the Nader article is making the case that the inefficiencies in the govternment are *due* to the special contractors. Not the other way around. And we aren't talking about Halliburton's "speciality with oil" either. This isn't rocket science here:
a corporate cook getting paid $120,000 for six months seems hefty. And this will all be reflected in the Halliburton bill to the tax-payers. And is the cook getting all this money for his/her hardwork over in Iraq? or is Halliburton skimming off the top, too.

You are right though about my comment, all of these companies do support their respective candidates. Its just that with Bush/cheney it is so explicit with their no-bid contract to Halliburton.


----------



## Bobm

We are both having a point missing festival :lol: . I agree with you that there is wasteful situations my point is that they are the result of ineffective oversight by the government. Now that being said I don't know why they have civilian cooks they sure didn't when I was in the army( maybe SFC RUDE could shed a little light on that) however *trying to compare wages for a cook here in the safety of the US with one in Iraq where they might be picked up by some maniacs and beheaded is not realistic either*. All jobs in a war zone pay extremely high wages nobody going to risk their butt for normal wages. And if Haliburton is managing them they should get some profit for doing it. You're are simply wrong about the oil aspect that is the major reason why they are there. And the whole stink about *the no bid was to keep the russians and french out of the equation*. My guess is that the other support type things they( Haliburton) are involved in are because of the security situation and the fact that they are already needed for the oil field reconstruction so its simpler to control with fewer contractors but I really am just guessing about that I'll try to read up on it when I get the time.


----------



## Bobm

So here it is...a warning from the federal government to be on the lookout for suicide bombers. In its weekly bulletin to 18,000 law enforcement agencies, here is what they are saying we should keep our eyes peeled for:

People wearing bulky jackets on warm days 
People smelling of chemicals 
Individuals whose fists are tightly clenched 
Suicide bombers who may disguise themselves as pregnant women 
Suicide bombers disguised as police officers in stolen uniforms 
So what is missing? How about an actual real description of a potential terrorist? Consider these indisputable facts:

-19 Islamic terrorists hijacked the four airliners on 9/11 that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 innocent American civilians 
-Islamic terrorists blew up the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, killing 17 American sailors 
-Islamic terrorists bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1997, killing 243 people and injuring 5,000 others 
-Islamic terrorists blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1995, killing 292 people 
I could go on, but you get the idea. *So why is the FBI ignoring the obvious? Oh yeah ... we have to be politically correct, don't we? While Americans are being targeted on their own homeland, we have to be oh so careful not to profile!* The lives of innocent American women and children are being put at risk under the guise of political correctness. All you have to do is look at the FBI's most-wanted list, a 20 year history of terrorist attacks and airplane hijackings to come to the following conclusion: the individual or group that is most likely to commit a terrorist attack against the United States is an Islamic fundamentalist Arab male. *Are all Arabs or Muslims terrorists? Of course not, but who should we be scrutinizing here? Some old lady from New Jersey, or a Saudi national at the airport?*
Sorry, but that's just the way it is. The sooner people realize it and accept it, the more lives that will be saved.


----------



## Bobm

Michael Berg, the father of terrorist beheading victim Nick Berg, is using his son's death to promote his long-held anti-Bush and anti-war position. Remember, Michael Berg was a signatory to some of the anti-American Saddam appeasement screeds issued by a group called International ANSWER prior to the beginning of the liberation of Iraq in early 2003. I'm not going to tell you here of the connections of International ANSWER and the world communist movement. You just check out that angle yourself. You won't believe me anyway.

So ... last week Michael Berg writes a little op-ed piece for the London Guardian. I've lifted a part of that speech from Tranto's Friday Column and placed it here. Read it ... and try to control your gag reflex:



> People ask me why I focus on putting the blame for my son's tragic and atrocious end on the Bush administration. They ask: "Don't you blame the five men who killed him?" I have answered that I blame them no more or less than the Bush administration, but I am wrong: I am sure, knowing my son, that somewhere during their association with him these men became aware of what an extraordinary man my son was. I take comfort that when they did the awful thing they did, they weren't quite as in to it as they might have been. I am sure that they came to admire him.
> 
> I am sure that the one who wielded the knife felt Nick's breath on his hand and knew that he had a real human being there. I am sure that the others looked into my son's eyes and got at least a glimmer of what the rest of the world sees. And I am sure that these murderers, for just a brief moment, did not like what they were doing.
> 
> George Bush never looked into my son's eyes. George Bush doesn't know my son, and he is the worse for it. George Bush, though a father himself, cannot feel my pain, or that of my family, or of the world that grieves for Nick, because he is a policymaker, and he doesn't have to bear the consequences of his acts. George Bush can see neither the heart of Nick nor that of the American people, let alone that of the Iraqi people his policies are killing daily.


Now isn't that special? Here we have Michael Berg  , while painting George Bush as a heartless and unfeeling policymaker. Forgive the terrorists, for they really didn't like doing what they did anyway. It's our president who is the bad guy????????? uke:


----------



## Bobm

Oh boy...this is rich. Appearing on 'Fox News Sunday,' New York Senator Hillary Clinton actually said that the United States needs a larger military. "We have to face the fact we need a larger active-duty military." So why all of the sudden are liberals wanting a bigger military? Could it be because they want to put Bush in a position of having to call for a new draft? Or is Hillary just trying to create the new "Hillary loves our soldiers" brand?

Consider the history here. This is the same Hillary Clinton whose administration (we all know who wore the pants in the White House....actually, she may have been the only one wearing pants) gutted the intelligence budget in the 90's and cut the military. For her to stand there and somehow act like a newly-converted friend of the military is an absolute insult to anyone's intelligence who knows better.

*The left will stop at nothing to defeat George Bush...including switching positions on the issues*. Whatever it takes.


----------



## Bobm

So Kerry has been criticizing the Bush administration for the war in Iraq and for national security policy, leaving one to wonder just what he would do differently. Well, yesterday he laid out his "national security blueprint." What a waste of newsprint. Kerry knows that Americans trust President Bush on terrorism, and he's trying to up the ante.

Kerry says that the Bush administration's policy amounts to bullying. Bullying? If he means Iraq, then surely he knows that the United States is merely enforcing 12 years of U.N. Security Council resolutions. We tried to get the U.N. support for the war...how is that bullying? Maybe what he really means is that the United States doing something without the express written consent of France, Germany and Kofi Annan. Any military action taken without the permission of the Euro-weenies and the UN is "bullying"?????  
Then Kerry continued : "Because Al-Qaeda is a network with many branches, we must take the fight to the enemy on every continent - and enlist other countries in that cause." *That is precisely what the Bush administration has been doing for 3 years. From Pakistan hunting Al-Qaeda to the British arresting that cleric yesterday...there's your international cooperation.* Apparently Kerry has been too busy being a kept man and voting against military spending to notice.

Then he had this to say: "We simply can't go it alone - or rely on a coalition of the few." *Another lie. *From Great Britain to Australia to Italy to Poland and others, we have a coalition in Iraq. Those countries are helping where they can. Just because France, Germany and the United Nations didn't sign off on it, liberals consider that "going it alone." Even if this were a U.N. operation, the overwhelming majority of troops would be from the United States. Then, in the same speech, Kerry warned terrorists that "I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks."

*Sure he will....but only after playing a nice little game of "Mommy may I?" with France and the United Nations.*
uke:


----------



## Bobm

*Finally, the real agenda of Kerry is being exposed (by himself, no less,) and everybody needs to listen up.* Yesterday, in a speech in West Palm Beach, Florida, Kerry outlined measures he believes would dramatically reduce the possibility that terrorists would attack the United States with nuclear weapons. He called it the greatest threat facing the nation, and on this one single point, *he is right. *

So, what does Kerry propose? Here's his five-point plan.

1)Secure nuclear weapons materials around the world, particularly in the former Soviet Union. 
2)Ban future existing nuclear material production. 
3)Reduce existing nuclear stockpiles worldwide. 
4)Increase interdiction and enforcement 
5)Establish a White House coordinator. 
How does Kerry handle the fact that this is basically the same program the Bush administration is already pursuing? He just says he can do it quicker, that's about it. Another Kerry "four year" promise.

But wait. I say that this is basically Bush's program ... but there may be one big difference. What's this "Ban future existing nuclear material production" thing? Does that include the United States? Is this a modern-day update to the old nuclear freeze idiocy from 20 years ago. The problem is this: just because the United States stops building nuclear weapons doesn't mean our enemies will. If banning something made it go away, then illegal drugs and illegal weapons would be off the street. Doesn't work. Is Kerry calling for some form of unilateral nuclear disarmament? Would North Korea stop making their nuclear weapons if we did? Of course not. Sure....they might say they're going to, but they won't. Clarification needed here.
Kerry also is upset that we're still developing nukes. "As president, I will stop this administration's program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs." And what is his reason? "What kind of message does it send when we're asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons but developing new ones ourselves." There he goes again...trying to appease other countries. *The answer is simple: rogue regimes would use nuclear weapons to blackmail their neighbors*. The United States uses nukes to defend itself. Then again, America is always to blame.

This shows just how dangerous John Kerry is when it comes to national security. We're in the middle of a global war on terror...the 4th World War...and he seems to be talking about nuclear disarmament, making us weaker. *This certainly appeals to much of the world .. the part of the world that wants to see a weaker America. Does it appeal to you?*


----------



## Bobm

File this one under "getting it right." In a speech to graduates at the Air Force Academy in Colorado yesterday, President Bush compared the war on terror to World War II. "Our goal, the goal of this generation, is the same. We will secure our nation and defend the peace through the forward march of freedom," said the President. Despite Kerry's incessant drumbeat about jobs and health care, *this is the most important issue in this election.*
It's too bad, but typical, that a lot of people don't understand the seriousness of this war on terror. They take our safety and security for granted. How easily people have forgotten 9/11. It's been almost three years...you remember, don't you? That's when the Islamic terrorists killed 3,000 innocent Americans on our own soil. That's when Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, after 8 years of appeasement from the Clinton administration, decided to attack. They want to do it again - and they're spending every hour of every single day planning their next attack. Their next big thing will be to try and detonate a dirty bomb in the middle of a populated city. How many people will that kill? Hundreds of thousands?

In some ways, the stakes are higher in the war on terror than World War II. Were the Nazis going to take over the United States? Hardly. We dealt with them pre-emptively. Same thing with Saddam Hussein. It's time to pay attention....we are at war...World War IV..the war on Islamic terrorism. If you don't value your freedom -- and many Americans don't -- then maybe you value your physical safety. Aren't you just a little appreciative of the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11? *Do you like being able to go out for lunch without a suicide bomber blowing up the restaurant?*

*Then vote for a candidate who has actually shown with his actions that he will defend this country ... not one who changes his stance depending on just who he's trying to impress at the time.*

Then there is this BS about the new government in Iraq...
The interim Prime Minister was announced the other day by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. The U.N. has been in Iraq consulting with the Iraqis to see who the choices would be for the interim government. Yet, despite this, numerous headlines thunder around the world about this being a "puppet government" that was "installed by the U.S."

What are they talking about? President Bush has said that he had zero input into the decision. If the United States wanted a puppet government installed in Iraq there would have been some viable evidence of U.S. pressure and arms being twisted. That didn't happen, and so now the Bush-haters are just making stuff up.

*The left can't stand this, but the undeniable fact is that the only interest the United States had in going to war with Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein and furthering the war against Islamic terrorism. Not to become an occupying force, not for oil, and not for anything else. So there.*


----------



## Southwest Fisher

"When Carter was screwing up the country?" Guess he should have sold the Contras weapons under the table like Reagan, huh? Would that have stopped the gas shortages that were already in affect before he took office? Not everything around can be blamed on liberals, Bobm, but thanks for trying. If the war on terrorism is so important, how come we have to slash the budget for homeland security to pay for a tax cut that vastly benefits those whom neither need it nor put it back into our economy? By the way, just so I don't fall into Bobm's trap and become completely irrelevant with this site, North Dakota's own Homeland Security budget will be cut next year by $11 Milion dollars, just so Halliburton can have another no-bid contract. And don't even get me started on enviromental issues which affect ALL OF US SPORTSMEN. Are you one, Bobm? Or do you hunt on fenced in game farms like Cheney? Just wondering.


----------



## Bobm

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 3:20 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> "When Carter was screwing up the country?"
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Economy in the tank, double digit interest rates, gas shortages, the rest of the world walking over us, like those Turds in Iran holding our people hostage I could go on...Carter even went bankrupt down here with his personal peanut farm he is an imcompetent but good hearted man good neighbor but poor president material
> 
> 
> 
> Guess he should have sold the Contras weapons under the table like Reagan, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep anything to stop the spread of communism in the western hemishpere was a good decision and it worked, something our leftist Demacrat controled congress at the time opposed. If fact Reagan stopped it every where he was a great president.
> 
> 
> 
> Would that have stopped the gas shortages that were already in affect before he took office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how old you were but the gas shortages happened during the Carter admistration from 1973 on, I was there.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everything around can be blamed on liberals, Bobm, but thanks for trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said it was just the bad stuff :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> If the war on terrorism is so important, how come we have to slash the budget for homeland security to pay for a tax cut that vastly benefits those whom neither need it nor put it back into our economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this idiotic statement, news flash its a tax cut when and only when you caut the taxes of the people that pay the taxes, instead of the income redistribution you are alludeing to. *And your statement that they don't put it back in the economy shows your typical liberal inability to understand basic economics, let me ask you what do they do with the money put it in their mattress???? * No they invest it which provides capital for other people to start businesses or for other people borrow it at lower interest rates because there is more of it available because of supply and demand( something else you probably never heard of) to buy equipment for their businesses see this is the core problem with conversations like this with liberal idiots, they don't even have a basic understanding of business, so off they go of half cocked with all the liberal cliches
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, just so I don't fall into Bobm's trap and become completely irrelevant with this site, North Dakota's own Homeland Security budget will be cut next year by $11 Milion dollars, just so Halliburton can have another no-bid contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton started the no-bid hiring of haliburton I think he did it twice so if its ok for him its ok for Bush :lol: They are finally getting smart with the Homeland Security budget and allocating it where its needs to go North Dakota is probably not as high on their list as other areas, neither I nor you have the information at our disposal to make intelligent comments about where the monies should be spent for the countrys' best interest.
> 
> 
> 
> don't even get me started on enviromental issues which affect ALL OF US SPORTSMEN. Are you one, Bobm? Or do you hunt on fenced in game farms like Cheney? Just wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 Sounds to me like you need to be in a fenced farm alright the "Funny Farm" :lol: :lol: Although your statements about me are as accurate as the rest of your blither :lol:


----------



## buckseye

You must see how greed passes thru party lines untouched,just one big happy family. The statement about Clinton only proves who is in charge of this country. All politicians are out for themselves.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Wow, great responses, Bob! Could have come rigth out of the mouth of Coulter! Lets try to get it right this time. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, 37.6% of Bush's cut goes to the top 1% of income earners in the US. Are you serious that these people are gonna put more money into our economies than the middle class, whom actually need more money to buy what they want? A multi-billionaire doesn't need the tax cut to buy a new Porsche from overseas, but the average joe will use it to get a new car, or to get out of his apartment and buy a real house, etc. That's local ecomony stimulus waiting to happen.
Carter took office in 1977. You yourself said that the shortages started in 1973. That would be Nixon. Since apparently you don't read anything other that Rush's webpage, I'll remind you that Nixon was a Republican. I suppose you also have the infallible logic that Carter was entirely to blame for everything bad during his administration, w/ no carryover from before, but everything good during Clinton's Administration was a result of Reagan's economic policies, right? Also, Halliburton had the first no-bid contract to fix the oilwells of Kuwait after Desert Strom, two years before Clinton took office (and Cheney went to work on their board). 
Also, don't deny it, its a documented fact that Cheney participates in "canned" hunts at game farms where the animals are released into a cages enclosure. In the last one he was at, Cheney himself took down over 70 birds. I highly doubt they all made it into his frying pan. That is an insult to people like me, who actually hunt and eat animals. But go ahead and justify it, Bob! Here's one of many links to prove it:

www.nydailynews.com/front/story/160838p-141085c.html

You may have to cut and paste that into your browser.

The fact alone that you have justified the Iran-Contra scandal tells me all I need to know, Bob. That's pretty scary stuff. I'm sure you're another big supporter of the war whom has never served a day in his life, and I'll take that back if you can prove me wrong. But being in the service myself (and I still am!) I've noticed that the biggest war supporters have no fear of actually having to do the fighting themselves. So I'll leave you, now, to mourn the loss of your "Great Communicator" and his record deficits. See you at the next fenced-in hunt!


----------



## Bobm

Here is who pays the taxes


> In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.
> According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:
> 1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected. 2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).
> Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.


Southwest Fisher says


> Wow, great responses, Bob! Could have come rigth out of the mouth of Coulter! Lets try to get it right this time. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, 37.6% of Bush's cut goes to the top 1% of income earners in the US. Are you serious that these people are gonna put more money into our economies than the middle class, whom actually need more money to buy what they want? A multi-billionaire doesn't need the tax cut to buy a new Porsche from overseas, but the average joe will use it to get a new car, or to get out of his apartment and buy a real house, etc. That's local ecomony stimulus waiting to happen.


*I know this is hard for you to understand but it is totally fair and logical that if you have a tax cut then the people that pay the taxes would get the cut, DUH!*
What you really want is for the government to seize money from people that earn it and give it to people that didn't and call it a tax cut so that the people recieving the money don;t have to face the fact that they are a bunch of socialis thieves using the government to plunder the productive.
I gave you an economics lesson in the previous post, I guess you couldn't follow it, try reading it again maybe you could have a friend explain it to you. 
Southwest Fisher says


> Carter took office in 1977. You yourself said that the shortages started in 1973. That would be Nixon.


Your right I guess I'm getting old had a litttle brainfart. Carter instituted the 55 MPH speed limit which at the time was one of his better ideas. Carter was still one of our worst presidents which is why every state in the country agreed with me not you and kicked him out :lol: 
Southwest Fisher says


> Also, don't deny it, its a documented fact that Cheney participates in "canned" hunts at game farms where the animals are released into a cages enclosure. In the last one he was at, Cheney himself took down over 70 birds.


I have news for you game farm pheasants are not released into cages and hunting planted released birds is common in the entire Eastern US,
don't worry about the poor birdies, he probably gave them to some poor jobless Socialist Democrat to eat :lol: 
Southwest fisher says


> The fact alone that you have justified the Iran-Contra scandal tells me all I need to know, Bob. That's pretty scary stuff. I'm sure you're another big supporter of the war whom has never served a day in his life, and I'll take that back if you can prove me wrong. But being in the service myself (and I still am!) I've noticed that the biggest war supporters have no fear of actually having to do the fighting themselves.


I am a big supporter of the war and I was a medic MOS was 92b20 or something like that its been over 30 years ago. I was regular army which probably does mean a thing to you, means I enlisted I wasn't drafted back then enlisting wasn't real popular I was a dumb as you ( well maybe not :wink: ) and wanted to see what was going on in the war. 
By the way I think the Vietnam war was a good thing also, becasue it stopped the progression of communism in SE Asia, a fact that is seldom mentioned about it, all you here is the bad parts. And was one more little step in ending the cold war.
Its good that you are serving, I'm proud of you for that. :beer: 
Southwest Fisher says


> See you at the next fenced-in hunt!


I hope so, I woud love the chance to hunt with Dick Cheney, and we could give you some extra pheasants for your frying pan :lol: Be careful


----------



## Bobm

The biggest boogeyman in the Bush administration to the liberals has to be Attorney General John Ashcroft. He testified yesterday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about a leaked 2002 policy memo on the degree of pain and suffering legally permitted during enemy interrogations. He won't release it or any other memos. This, of course, upsets Democrats who are looking for more blood.

They're just following the template...anything to get Bush. Anything that could be perceived as being bad news for the president, they are going to jump right on it and try and tear down the president. Such is their hatred for the man that they will stop at nothing to ensure his defeat for re-election. They'll try anything.

In his testimony, Ashcroft said he knows of no presidential order that would allow Al-Qaeda suspects to be tortured by U.S. personnel. (That's a shame, actually). Senate Democrats said that wasn't enough...they want the Justice Department to release the original documents. Ashcroft said no :lol: , and it was all down hill from there.

The 50-page memo, portions of which were leaked in the press, says that inflicting physical or psychological pain might be justified in the war on terrorism to prevent further attacks. Know what? I don't really have a problem with that. The memo was addressed to White House counsel from the Justice Department, the kind of thing that goes on all the time. Well .. here's a dose or reality. You could also probably find a memo somewhere in the White House about using nuclear weapons against North Korea or Iran. You don't necessarily implement every idea that gets considered .. and releasing those memos only gives more fuel to the media to hammer Bush leading into the election.

Here's a question...and be honest with yourself. Imagine you have an Al-Qaeda member in custody...and you know they are planning another terrorist attack on the United States. The dog-squeeze in front of you knows who's doing it and where it's going to happen. Thousands, if not millions of lives are at stake. Would you torture him to get the information? *Damn right you would.....and should*! Do you want to face the families of 30,000 people killed in a terrorist attack and tell them that their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, sons and daughters would still be alive if you had only twisted an Islamic terrorist's arms a bit more? *This whole business about the Geneva Conventions does not apply. Those rules apply to organized armies...not terrorist organizations. But that doesn't matter to the Bush-hating, anti-American left. * uke:



> Oddly enough, the one voice of reason on this was New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, who said " I think there are very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake."


 :beer: You could of knocked me over with a feather. Schumer of all people! Maybe there is hope for the Democrats...what would Kerry think?


----------



## Southwest Fisher

My God, Bob, you are just too far to the right for me, I cannot even fathom where you're coming from! I grw up around conservatives, the majority of my friends are conservatives, we have great discussions w/ lots of give and take all the time, but when I presented your views to them they thought I was kidding. Being anti-Bush DOES NOT make you unAMerican, and by your logic then if you ever said anything about our previous Commander-In-Chief while he was still in office, then you are a dirty unpatriotic anti-American. And I'll bet my a** that you did.
Yes, Bob, some canned hunts do include large enclosures that are fenced in to make sure that no animals get away, so try researching something. 
Is torture worth it to save the lives of many? Do you have any grasp of concepts more complex than face value? Whether or not we were doing these things (and don't make it sound like we were only messing w/ information-filled al Qaeda regulars, because many of these abused have been released by now, and no way would we have done that if they were the real deal!!), the fact is that we let the world find out that we can be no better than them at times, and we're supposed to be the good guys! W ehave to hold ourselves to a higher standard, or else our whole excuse for the war becomes (impossibly) weaker. Can you fathom that there are other cultures out there that may be different than us? ANd that by their belief standards, what we did to them would be the equivalent of them making one of us fondle our kid sister? Or even brother? How ****** off would we be if we got invaded by someone who promised our freedom and then instead molested us? ANd yeah, I'm sure that chick w/ the collar and cig gave a rat's a** about terrorist intelligence. Simple-minded people like you never see the big picture. I bet you're a big supporter of ending the assault weapons ban, huh? No matter what those silly leftist groups think, you know, likr the police? If that ends, I promise you this, try and bring an AK onto my land for "hunting," I dare ya. 
Bob, you win, I'm just tired out - yeah for you. I've noticed now that you have so many forums going on here, I don't know howyou find time to do it, I'm scared to ask why, but I came to this forum to find fishing info, and not the right-wing path to salvation. I can't believe that you could post as much as you do and still find time to enjoy the outdoors, but since I can guess by your hate-filled invectives that you may suffer from high blood pressure (and involuntary celibacy?), why don't you take the time to read the other categories, and get some good information about ways to enjoy yourself outside? A little break from the keypad may calm those pinko-liberal frazzled nerves.
P.S. Kerry went to war, Bush didn't, and nothing that you follow up with (and you will) can ever change that!


----------



## Bobm

Sf says


> Yes, Bob, some canned hunts do include large enclosures that are fenced in to make sure that no animals get away, so try researching something


. Yes some do but you said that the one Cheney was in did and it did not you SF lied to disparage his character
SF says


> Whether or not we were doing these things (and don't make it sound like we were only messing w/ information-filled al Qaeda regulars, because many of these abused have been released by now, and no way would we have done that if they were the real deal!!),


 Some may have been innocent but only a very small percentage that were messed with were innocent (if any). Too bad tell them to wear uniforms if they want Geneva protection, most of them are terrorists.
Sf says


> Can you fathom that there are other cultures out there that may be different than us?


 Yes some are different and some like the case of the Islamic Jihadist culture are degenerate and substandard compared to our culture and deserve no respect
Sf says


> I bet you're a big supporter of ending the assault weapons ban, huh? No matter what those silly leftist groups think,


 *Yep, you leftists are just dying to get our guns and the definition of assault weapons is dishonest like you*
The rest of you post is a typical reaction you leftists have to facts, call names and threaten because facts and history just aren't on your side which I take great pleasure in pointing out. Thanks again


----------



## Southwest Fisher

You keep saying that liberals have no facts nor history - I'm reminded again of which fortunate son chose to go to Vietnam and which one hid in Texas. That real enough for ya, buddy!?
I won't even use a semi-auto shotgun for pheasants, for the simple fact that I've seen too many losers that can't hit a bird w/ anything else. And then there are guys who want to use AK's and M16's for hunting? Those aren't sportsmen, they're a-holes, pure and simple. And they can't get a deer w/ a bolt-action 30-06. Be proud of those brothers, Bob!
You'll answer selectively, spew some rhetoric, then go listen to Rush and Hannity until they make you feel better about your inadeqacies - whatever turns your crank. And silly old me will defend your rights to do what you please, no matter how meaningless it may be. That's just the way things go.
Keep it real!


----------



## Plainsman

SWF

You are emotional, illogical or purposely deceptive. Your statements are so full of holes I wouldn't know where to began. Therefore let me address one issue with you. Most people on sportsmen sites are straight forward individuals not surreptitious in the least. If you are a sportsman and have paid any attention to laws you can not possibly believe anyone hunts with an AK47. Full auto has been illegal since 1936, unless of course you are very rich and influential, then perhaps you could obtain a permit. The democrats and media have purposely portrayed many firearms that are not assault weapons as assault weapons. I would think anyone that pays any attention to firearms, hunting, and keeps current with national evens would be better informed. I can not believe today that anyone does not know the truth, therefore, I can only surmise that you march lockstep with what ever the liberals or media tell you, and are willing to sacrifice your credibility in the event that there might be someone reading this thread actually dumb enough to believe we sportsmen hunt with AK47's. Credibility is a treasured trait SW hard to earn and easily lost. I don't know how everyone else feels, but I get upset when people use falsehoods to disparage sportsmen or the constitution. 
To quote you "keep it real"


----------



## Bobm

Sf says


> I'm reminded again of which fortunate son chose to go to Vietnam and which one hid in Texas


 Kerry went to Nam got some paper cut phony purple hearts which he commanding officer didn't want to do and has stated that recently,so he could run back to the states in 4 months, and then join the liberal anti war movement and undermine our effort in Vietnam and give comfort to the enemy with Jane Fonda and her ilk. Kerrys antiwar actions killed a lot of our people and cost us the war in Vietnam. Kerrys own men are threatening to sue him if he uses their photos again because they know hes a phony political animal.
Now Kerry recommends turning the war on terrorists over to the appeasment crowd and the corrupt UN because he is a short sighted liberal and the most liberal anti gun senator in the senate. *Which I guess you really like as a liberal supporter of gun laws yourself.* Lliberals like you just can't stand the idea of holding indviduals who do wrong with gun responsible for the actions, so you want to impose your phony feel good accomplish nothing guns laws on the law abiding rest of us :******: . And I hunt pheasants with a side by side twelve guage, and I hunt deer with a long bow and its not because I have anything against autos, used one as a kid. Its purely because I like simplicity and ease of care. I hunt deer with a 30-30 contender single shot pistol when I use a gun which is rarely nowadays because in Georgia you can carry a bow during gun season so I do. So theres one more example of how wrong you are with your ridiculous assumptions. LIBERALS LOVE TO MAKE UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIMS ABOUT THINGS THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHICH I THINK IS FUNNY. thanks again for allowing me to point it out :beer:


----------



## headhunter

:rollin:


----------



## MSG Rude

I put this on another topic but it fits here too so those of you that have read it disreguard. The rest of you might find this entertaining! SWF, I guess this shows how two in the same line of work can disagree so much also.

"History has proven that in EVERY war there have been acts which were later discovered and led to the 'PC' outcry. During a time of war both sides will do what it takes to win, welcome to war. I would suggest some people to read the definition in Websters dictionary.

I know in my heart that I too would do an Olie North and accept full responcibility of my actions and protect those above me if I were to be given orders to do things that are either "In the grey area" or just blatantly wrong *IF IT WERE FOR THE GOOD OF MY COUNTRY AND MY COUNTRYMEN!* I might not enjoy it and would have to ask God's forgiveness for it, but damit, I would do whatever it takes to save my soldiers lives and the lives of American people. That is *MY* level of dedication.

Sorry folks, war is war that is why it is called war. Somethings to remember:

Some American Indian tribes would gladly and willingly kill and unarmed, restricted enemy and call it a great triumph while us 'civilized' folk would call this an atrosity.

WWI saw the invent of 'Mustard Gas'. This was tried on prisoners of war to watch it's effects. By they way, we (America) did this.

WWI again, the machine gun was the 'machine to stop the war' and was also tried on 'human detaine's'.

Hitler liked to experiment with prisoners for his own (Uneducated) Scientific experiments.

Records show that Mongol's used to put fresh rawhide from an animal tied around a captives skull and then set out in the sun to watch his head get crushed as the hide dries and shrinks.

I have made a study of some of the ways of torture used through out the ages, long before Christ was even born. It is amazing what man has learned to do to each other and how creative we can be.

My point is that war is war and I for one will do what ever it takes to win and save the lives of my fellow countrymen.

*IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE READ THIS....IF YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THE ELEPHANT EYE TO EYE THEN YOU CAN NOT MAKE AN EDUCATED RESPONSE TO 'WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG' IN A TIME OF WAR! *

I do not speak on the process of Nucular Fusion because I have no knowledge and can barely spell it. Put this to use in your opinions unless you too make the statement that you have no idea what you are talking about before you speak your opinion.

Just my 
_________________
SFC Rude


----------



## Bobm

Great article by Oliver North
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

In my 22 years as an officer of Marines -- from Annapolis to The Basic School to the Naval War College -- similar advice was drilled into us: to know your enemy. It's sound guidance, pretty basic stuff, really. Yet there are apparently those in our government -- people with many years of experience, supposedly learned statesmen, according to their bios and press reports -- who somehow don't get it.

Our present enemy, properly identified by President George W. Bush and his National Security team, is the radical Islamic jihadist terror movement. Our enemy is not limited to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, though they certainly fit the bill. Radical Islamic jihadist terrorists, principally financed by Saudi petro-dollars, also carry out their killing under the rubric of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Ansar al-Islam and dozens of other names. *And though they use different monikers, they all have a common goal: to kill as many Americans, Christians and Jews as they can, using whatever tools they have at their disposal. *
While these barbaric groups prefer mass killings and spectacular events like 9-11, they are more than willing to settle for individual atrocities: a suicide bus-bomber in Israel or the gruesome beheading of a single hostage. They know they can count on the Internet, Arabic-language broadcast media, of which Al Jazerra is but one, and even Western press outlets to help them spread fear.

These enemies are utterly ruthless, and indescribably brutal. Though the leaders of these groups do all they can to avoid death or capture, their "foot soldiers" are not only willing to die for their cause -- they want to die. And unlike our adversaries of the past, this enemy is not motivated by goals that inspired armies of old: land, treasure, strategic waterways or natural resources. Today's enemy is instead goaded by a twisted belief that they have a holy mission to advance their religion and drive Western influence -- meaning Judeo-Christian values -- from any Islamic territory.

The president and his team understand this enemy. Some Democrats, like Sens. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, do as well. Unfortunately, others who manage to command much more media attention apparently believe that President Bush and his generals are the enemy. And their attacks on the president over these past few weeks have proven Sun Tzu's admonition, that if you don't know who your enemy really is, "for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat."

The brutal beheading of American Paul Johnson is a tragic, sanguinary example of such a defeat. In the original statement issued by Johnson's captors, they referred to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and said Johnson would be treated the same way that prisoners there were treated. The prison issue has inflamed the Arab world because too many of our political and media elites have treated the shameful actions of a few soldiers in an Iraqi prison as though it were the modern equivalent of the My Lai massacre. The blood of Paul Johnson is on their hands.

This week, President George W. Bush met with Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy in the Oval Office. Hours earlier, a 33-year-old South Korean, Kim Sun-il, an Arabic translator working in Iraq, was brutally beheaded by terrorists. The terrorists took this man hostage and threatened to kill him in an effort to influence the South Korean government to withdraw its troops from Iraq. The brutal beheading came just days after the beheading of Johnson and just six weeks after the beheading of Nick Berg.

Surely the sophisticated scribes of the vaunted White House press corps would want to know the president's reaction to the brutal beheading of Kim Sun-il and ask what more he can do to win this war and protect American citizens at home and abroad. But when the opportunity arose to ask about the most recent atrocity, the first question from an American reporter was to inquire of the "perception" that torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was authorized by the Bush administration. This inquiring whiz also wanted to know if the president thought it would be wise to have an independent commission look into the matter. :******:

*The media want to know, because Democrat leaders on Capitol Hill are calling for exactly that. This week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her brethren held a news conference to demand that a select committee of the Congress be established to investigate abuses, not just at Abu Ghraib prison, but at any prison in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. *

*They are convinced that the men and women of America's military are the bad guys*. Sen. Teddy Kennedy, an expert in scandals and water torture, routinely refers to abuses at Abu Ghraib as "torture" and "sadistic abuses." Former Vice President Al Gore uke: routinely accuses the president of lying and setting the "moral climate for abuses" by our armed forces. Regrettably, they have spent far less time denouncing murderous terrorists, calling Islamic clerics to speak out against such behavior or even issuing press releases condemning terror.

The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. *And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble.*


----------



## Bobm

Last week, speaking to a group of minority journalists, *Kerry said he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terror. Oh really?* Just how does Senator Kerry propose being more sensitive to the bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists that killed 3,000 innocent Americans three years ago? *Is he worried that we're not being sensitive enough to the thugs trying to kill our troops in Najaf right now? * :******: I don't particularly want a commander in chief focused on sensitivity. :eyeroll:

Anyway, speaking yesterday in Dayton, Ohio, Vice President* Dick Cheney promptly lit up Kerry, saying "Those that threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively, they need to be destroyed." Amen.* :beer: But this is good, because what you're seeing is a fundamental difference between the two candidates on the most important issue facing this country: national security (no, not jobs or health care.)

*On one side, you have a candidate who for four years has demonstrated his willingness to go after Islamic terrorists and kill them outright*. :beer: No negotiations, no pandering, no waiting for U.N. approval. Just a commitment to do whatever is necessary to preserve and protect the United States of America. *That's the Bush record*. :beer:

*On the other side, you have an appeaser. This is not in dispute.* *Kerry is more concerned with what France thinks than what the United States needs.* He is also inconsistent....one minute he is for the war, the next against it, and so on. Is this lack of resolve what we need when facing down the most vicious enemy we have ever faced in our history? I think not. *Ask anyone with experience dealing with Islamic radicals. They view sensitivity as weakness.* When they heard Kerry making his comments about "a more sensitive war on terror" they must have cheered. How do you say "bring it on, Mr. Sensitivity" in Arabic anyway? Face it, November's choice is becoming more and more clear.

*A more sensitive war on terror? Not sensitive, but weak. Very, very weak.* :******:


----------



## MSG Rude

Bobm,

I have to disagree with you on this one. I beleive we need to be _*MORE*_ sensitive towards these terrorist!

As sniper trained I say shoot them in the head so they don't feel the pain!

:sniper:

Always remember: "Two to the body and one to the head."


----------



## Bobm

Democrats wasted no time last week crawling out of the woodwork to bash President Bush's choice to be the head of the CIA, retiring Congressman Porter Goss. Despite his wealth of intelligence experience (former Army intelligence officer and CIA operative,) liberals are now decrying the president's "partisan" choice. Huh?

You see, that's how it works with the mainstream media and the Democrats in Congress. If a Democratic president appoints a Democrat to a post, it is never seen as a partisan choice. It's only when Republicans appoint Republicans do we hear this nonsense about being "partisan" and "divisive." *It's a lose-lose situation for the president when it comes to these morons...since they hate him, he can't do anything right.* :eyeroll:

Now you have Michael Moore, the despicable slug who has now decided to slander Porter Goss with an old interview he gave (why on earth Porter Goss gave Michael Moore an interview, we may never know.) Anyway, Goss said "It is true I was a case officer, clandestine services officer, and yes, I do understand the core mission of the business. But I couldn't get a job with the CIA today. I am not qualified." Of course, it should be pointed out that Goss was talking about his experience in the field in mentioning that he couldn't get a job as a field operative with the CIA today, and he didn't say he wasn't qualified to be the director. *Guess what? Bobby Cox manager of the Braves couldn't get a spot on the field with any major league baseball team in America, but he's the best manager out there. *


----------



## Militant_Tiger

This is all quite funny, because the day after Kerry made that speech, in front of the same croud Bush stated that we need to be very sensative when dealing with terrorists. Again, I cry hypocrisy, and it falls on deaf ears.

"* "Sensitive" Tactics. Both Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush did use the word "sensitive" when talking about the war on terror at the UNITY Journalists' convention. Bush's speech is on-line here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 806-1.html . Kerry's speech is on-line here http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/spee ... _0805.html but may be based on prepared remarks rather than what was actually given as it does not seem to reflect the use of the word "sensitive." Vice President Dick Cheney's August 12 speech criticizing Kerry's remarks is on-line here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 812-3.html . "


----------

