Islamic Terrorists Murder G.I.

latinlawyer · 06-28-2004, 01:40 PM

28 June 2004 - Reports indicate hostage Private Keith Matt Maupin has been killed

There are unconfirmed reports this noon that an Ohio hostage in Iraq has been killed.

Private Keith Matt Maupin was captured in April when gunmen armed with rocket propelled grenades attacked his convoy.

Two sources, a Cincinnati TV station and an Arabic Web site, both cites sources close to the Maupin family as saying that Maupin has been shot.

Reports indicate that Al Jazeera has a video tape of the shooting in its possession which it has not aired yet due to the coverage of the power turnover in Iraq.

LL

Riggins44 · 06-28-2004, 01:51 PM

Sick stuff, man.......Another needlessly wasted life by this silly, pre-determined war.......And for what, some pie in the sky notion that somehow ass-backwards Iraq will be a shining Democracy :rolleyes:
Real travesty: Those who built this war (below) on lies and deception are probably sitting pool side or out smacking tennis balls around.

[img]http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Human-GM-Bomb10sep03.GIF[/img]

[url=http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3349]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=3349[/url]

Spirit of Weeb · 06-28-2004, 01:58 PM

Maybe he'd still be alive if our interrogators were able to stick one more pair of panties on a captive terrorists head.

The real blood is on the hands of traitors like this:

[img]http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/ted_kennedy_a.jpg[/img]

cdflip78 · 06-28-2004, 02:07 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 01:51 PM
[b] Sick stuff, man.......Another needlessly wasted life by this silly, pre-determined war.......And for what, some pie in the sky notion that somehow ass-backwards Iraq will be a shining Democracy :rolleyes:
Real travesty: Those who built this war (below) on lies and deception are probably sitting pool side or out smacking tennis balls around.

[img]http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Human-GM-Bomb10sep03.GIF[/img]

[url=http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3349]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=3349[/url] [/b][/quote]
You people have no clue.... Do you ever slap yourself in the face and think about what you accuse people of?? You are accusing people of putting servicemen and women in danger... just for the hell of it. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton have thousands of quotes about Iraq's weapons and Al-Qaeda links... but to you these people were just wrong... but to you Bush lied... it's really pathetic.

pope · 06-28-2004, 08:09 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by latinlawyer[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 01:40 PM
[b] 28 June 2004 - Reports indicate hostage Private Keith Matt Maupin has been killed

There are unconfirmed reports this noon that an Ohio hostage in Iraq has been killed.

Private Keith Matt Maupin was captured in April when gunmen armed with rocket propelled grenades attacked his convoy.

Two sources, a Cincinnati TV station and an Arabic Web site, both cites sources close to the Maupin family as saying that Maupin has been shot.

Reports indicate that Al Jazeera has a video tape of the shooting in its possession which it has not aired yet due to the coverage of the power turnover in Iraq.

LL [/b][/quote]
hmmmmm they shoot our prisoners in the head. I wonder if the Red Cross, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore & Nancy Pelosi will be outraged by this.

Somehow I doubt it :rolleyes: But panties on the head, OH THE HORROR !!!!! :o

R.I.P Matt

Alk · 06-28-2004, 08:53 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 12:58 PM
[b] Maybe he'd still be alive if our interrogators were able to stick one more pair of panties on a captive terrorists head.

The real blood is on the hands of traitors like this:

[/b][/quote]
Yeah you're right. Maybe we should have strapped them to some electrocution device. I'm sure a prisoner who has been in there for months would know where a guy who was kidnapped a week ago was being held. :rolleyes:

R. Tyme · 06-29-2004, 03:30 AM

Psalm 94 excerpts

LORD, how long shall the wicked,
how long shall the wicked triumph?
How long shall they utter and speak hard things?
and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
They break in pieces thy people, O LORD,
and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger,
and murder the fatherless.
But judgment shall return unto righteousness:
and all the upright in heart shall follow it.
Who will rise up for me against the evildoers?
Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous,
and condemn the innocent blood.
But the LORD is my defense;
and my God is the rock of my refuge.
And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity,
and shall cut them off in their own wickedness;
yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off.

Jet Moses · 06-29-2004, 08:23 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by R. Tyme[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 03:30 AM
[b] Psalm 94 excerpts

LORD, how long shall the wicked,
how long shall the wicked triumph?
How long shall they utter and speak hard things?
and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
They break in pieces thy people, O LORD,
and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger,
and murder the fatherless.
But judgment shall return unto righteousness:
and all the upright in heart shall follow it.
Who will rise up for me against the evildoers?
Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous,
and condemn the innocent blood.
But the LORD is my defense;
and my God is the rock of my refuge.
And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity,
and shall cut them off in their own wickedness;
yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off. [/b][/quote]
Thumbody might be offended by thith. Where ith your thenthitivity? Hamath thupporters at UC IRVINE- OK.

Judeo-Chriththianity- [i]NOT[/i] OK.

You will love me. You will love me and ackthept me. I will not be held accountable for my perthanal behavior. Ithts all Ronald Reagans fault. Thtupid white men. Bunch of mean hairy fairies. Rules are for thquares.

dickkotite · 06-29-2004, 08:39 AM

i wonder if death by shooting will be the new method imposed by al-queida?

seriously, i wonder if there were discussions with top AQguys concerning beheadings and the bad publicity it brings.....or am i giving them too much credit?

well, if the beheadings suddenly stop and the shootings begin then.....

jetman67 · 06-29-2004, 10:23 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by dickkotite[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 08:39 AM
[b] i wonder if death by shooting will be the new method imposed by al-queida?

seriously, i wonder if there were discussions with top AQguys concerning beheadings and the bad publicity it brings.....or am i giving them too much credit?

well, if the beheadings suddenly stop and the shootings begin then..... [/b][/quote]
Is there really any difference? Killing is Killing. They were beheading hostages because of the more Dramatic effect with the public. Beheading is more work for the killers when they can simply put a bullet in someones head with alot less effort.

bman · 06-29-2004, 10:25 AM

PLEASE will you stop with the ted keenedy bashing! How is the blood on his hands!..you sound ignorant..please stop.

jetman67 · 06-29-2004, 10:26 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 10:25 AM
[b] PLEASE will you stop with the ted keenedy bashing! How is the blood on his hands!..you sound ignorant..please stop. [/b][/quote]
Are you saying that Teddy is an honorable man?

bitonti · 06-29-2004, 10:29 AM

Richard Clarke worked for the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations

he resigned, siting dangerous policies that were not allowing him to do his job...

however in his book he claims the only administration that gave the terrorism problem ANY meaningful attention was the Clinton administration.

and is it any surprise that this man, the very definition of bi-partisan is getting absolutely SLAMMED by the right as being nothing more than a guy trying to make a quick buck off a book.

Riggins is right the true bastards are guys like Paul Wolfowitz. These guys led us to war for no real reason. Clarke knew it, many others know it... but according to the supporters of the President, EVERYONE is wrong, and Wolfy is right...

<_<

bringing Ted Kennedy into the discussion is a diversionary tactic, nothing more.

pope · 06-29-2004, 10:46 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 10:29 AM
[b] however in his book he claims the only administration that gave the terrorism problem ANY meaningful attention was the Clinton administration.

[/b][/quote]
You mean when Bin Laden was offered up to Clinton and he passed?

You mean after the 93' WTC bombing when he did nothing?

You mean after the 2 embassy bombings when he did nothing?

You mean after the U.S.S. Cole bombing when he did nothing?

Oh Yah that Slick Willy was one tough appeaser on those terrorists.

jets5ever · 06-29-2004, 10:46 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 10:29 AM
[b] Richard Clarke worked for the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations

he resigned, siting dangerous policies that were not allowing him to do his job...

however in his book he claims the only administration that gave the terrorism problem ANY meaningful attention was the Clinton administration.

and is it any surprise that this man, the very definition of bi-partisan is getting absolutely SLAMMED by the right as being nothing more than a guy trying to make a quick buck off a book.

Riggins is right the true bastards are guys like Paul Wolfowitz. These guys led us to war for no real reason. Clarke knew it, many others know it... but according to the supporters of the President, EVERYONE is wrong, and Wolfy is right...

<_<

bringing Ted Kennedy into the discussion is a diversionary tactic, nothing more. [/b][/quote]
Bit- why, then, did Clark praise Bush's handling of the war on terror when he was on staff? This was AFTER the Iraq War was being planned. Why do his statements completely contradict one another, and what relationship do those contradictions have with (1) his financial incentive to hype a book and generate publicity for it (2) his frustration of NOT being appointed the job that Tom Ridge eventually got and (3) his desire to play a prominent role in a potential Kerry administration? None of these are worth even a cursory examination by your critical eye?

Why didn't Clinton or Clarke do [i]anything[/i] about AQ during their tenure together, and after several attacks, even one on US soil?? Again, I am not blaming Clinton for this or that because the GOP or Richard Clarke, or the entire country wasn't on a "war footing" regarding terror until 9-11 showed us all how immediate the threat is, but to say that Clinton took terrorism "seriously" is simply empty, partisan rhetoric that is not even closely related to facts or actions. Talk about distractions, that is simply a statement that only a fool or an ignoramus would truly believe. It is revisionist history, with the intention of covering one's ass for failure. Every single member of government is engaged in a CYA operation, since it is clear that they ALL let us down and ALL didn't take terrorism seriously until 9-11 FORCED them to. It's not a partisan issue, but Clarke was the "terror czar" and he has some 'splaining to do, so he lashed out at Bush, tryin (feebly) to deflect attention from HIS failings, only after he was passed over for the Homeland job. George HW Bush, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and yes, Dubya ALL didn't take terrorism seriously enough. Some guy's book doesn't prove that - their [i]actions[/i] do. IMO, Dubya HAS taken it seriously enoigh after 9-11 and that is why I am voting for him, even in light of the gigantic and coordinated smear campaign being waged daily against him.

You equate mistakes with nefarious intentions, and would rather concoct bizarre conspiracy theories and villify our leaders for defending us imperfectly, all while bending over backweards to give the benefit of the doubt to the people that are trying to kill you. The fact that you are arrogant about it makes it funny, IMO.

You are willing to believe ANY conspiracy of the right, based on nothing but the words "Texas" "oil" and "Halliburton." Yet, when the other side has a potential or apparent conflict of interest, you dismiss it as ad hominem nonsense, even though ALL of your arguments against Bush are based on ad hominem, conflict of interest intuition. You honestly hate Bush more than you hate the terrorists, it seems.

The "very definition of bi-partisan." That's hilarious. George Tenet served under the last two administrations. Was he bi-partisan? If so, why do you claim Bush "lied" about the war, when Tenet steadfastly denies hyping intel and told Bush on several occasions that the case was a slam dunk (saying so under oath)?

I mean, I didn't like Clinton, but I didn't believe the Wag the Dog nonsense or anything. People need to grow the F up around here.....

bitonti · 06-29-2004, 11:32 AM

5ever and Pope

the bottom line is that the justification for war should be able to be summed up in 10 words or less. If it takes longer than 10 words to convey the reason why American troops have to die then it's a bulls--t war.

jets5ever · 06-29-2004, 11:34 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 11:32 AM
[b] 5ever and Pope

the bottom line is that the justification for war should be able to be summed up in 10 words or less. If it takes longer than 10 words to convey the reason why American troops have to die then it's a bulls--t war. [/b][/quote]
That's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it. I simply passionately disagree.

pope · 06-29-2004, 11:38 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 11:32 AM
[b] 5ever and Pope

the bottom line is that the justification for war should be able to be summed up in 10 words or less. If it takes longer than 10 words to convey the reason why American troops have to die then it's a bulls--t war. [/b][/quote]
I can sum it up in less than 10.

TIES TO AL QEADA.

bitonti · 06-29-2004, 11:43 AM

pope the Saudi gov't has ties to Al_Queda why don't we attack them?

fact of the matter is Al_Queda cells are in 60 countries - we invaded just Iraq... why?

like i said before if it takes a novel to rationalize the death of US Servicemen then their deaths are probably in vain. The US people know this and that's the reason why Bush's approval numbers are in the crapper.

bitonti · 06-29-2004, 11:44 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 11:42 AM
[b]
I can name that tune in six words.

'A towel is not a hat."

What'd I win? [/b][/quote]
you win a ride on any NYC taxi of your choosing

maybe the next target for the US military should be the taxi depots? every 7-11 in the tri state area?

06-28-2004, 01:40 PM	#1
latinlawyer Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,239	28 June 2004 - Reports indicate hostage Private Keith Matt Maupin has been killed There are unconfirmed reports this noon that an Ohio hostage in Iraq has been killed. Private Keith Matt Maupin was captured in April when gunmen armed with rocket propelled grenades attacked his convoy. Two sources, a Cincinnati TV station and an Arabic Web site, both cites sources close to the Maupin family as saying that Maupin has been shot. Reports indicate that Al Jazeera has a video tape of the shooting in its possession which it has not aired yet due to the coverage of the power turnover in Iraq. LL

06-28-2004, 01:51 PM	#2
Riggins44 Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,139	Sick stuff, man.......Another needlessly wasted life by this silly, pre-determined war.......And for what, some pie in the sky notion that somehow ass-backwards Iraq will be a shining Democracy :rolleyes: Real travesty: Those who built this war (below) on lies and deception are probably sitting pool side or out smacking tennis balls around. [img]http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Human-GM-Bomb10sep03.GIF[/img] [url=http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3349]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=3349[/url]

06-28-2004, 01:58 PM	#3
Spirit of Weeb All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 2,393	Maybe he'd still be alive if our interrogators were able to stick one more pair of panties on a captive terrorists head. The real blood is on the hands of traitors like this: [img]http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/ted_kennedy_a.jpg[/img]

06-28-2004, 02:07 PM	#4
cdflip78 Rookie Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 747	[quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 01:51 PM [b] Sick stuff, man.......Another needlessly wasted life by this silly, pre-determined war.......And for what, some pie in the sky notion that somehow ass-backwards Iraq will be a shining Democracy :rolleyes: Real travesty: Those who built this war (below) on lies and deception are probably sitting pool side or out smacking tennis balls around. [img]http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Human-GM-Bomb10sep03.GIF[/img] [url=http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3349]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=3349[/url] [/b][/quote] You people have no clue.... Do you ever slap yourself in the face and think about what you accuse people of?? You are accusing people of putting servicemen and women in danger... just for the hell of it. This is why no one takes you seriously. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton have thousands of quotes about Iraq's weapons and Al-Qaeda links... but to you these people were just wrong... but to you Bush lied... it's really pathetic.

06-28-2004, 08:09 PM	#5
pope Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,979	[quote][i]Originally posted by latinlawyer[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 01:40 PM [b] 28 June 2004 - Reports indicate hostage Private Keith Matt Maupin has been killed There are unconfirmed reports this noon that an Ohio hostage in Iraq has been killed. Private Keith Matt Maupin was captured in April when gunmen armed with rocket propelled grenades attacked his convoy. Two sources, a Cincinnati TV station and an Arabic Web site, both cites sources close to the Maupin family as saying that Maupin has been shot. Reports indicate that Al Jazeera has a video tape of the shooting in its possession which it has not aired yet due to the coverage of the power turnover in Iraq. LL [/b][/quote] hmmmmm they shoot our prisoners in the head. I wonder if the Red Cross, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore & Nancy Pelosi will be outraged by this. Somehow I doubt it :rolleyes: But panties on the head, OH THE HORROR !!!!! :o R.I.P Matt

06-28-2004, 08:53 PM	#6
Alk isn't Bitter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Kansas Posts: 9,741	[quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 12:58 PM [b] Maybe he'd still be alive if our interrogators were able to stick one more pair of panties on a captive terrorists head. The real blood is on the hands of traitors like this: [/b][/quote] Yeah you're right. Maybe we should have strapped them to some electrocution device. I'm sure a prisoner who has been in there for months would know where a guy who was kidnapped a week ago was being held. :rolleyes:

06-29-2004, 03:30 AM	#7
R. Tyme totally disgusted with Jets' dis-organization Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Westchester County, NY Posts: 3,476	Psalm 94 excerpts LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves? They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it. Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the LORD is my defense; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off.

06-29-2004, 08:23 AM	#8
Jet Moses Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,281	[quote][i]Originally posted by R. Tyme[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 03:30 AM [b] Psalm 94 excerpts LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves? They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it. Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the LORD is my defense; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off. [/b][/quote] Thumbody might be offended by thith. Where ith your thenthitivity? Hamath thupporters at UC IRVINE- OK. Judeo-Chriththianity- [i]NOT[/i] OK. You will love me. You will love me and ackthept me. I will not be held accountable for my perthanal behavior. Ithts all Ronald Reagans fault. Thtupid white men. Bunch of mean hairy fairies. Rules are for thquares.

06-29-2004, 08:39 AM	#9
dickkotite SAR1 is my son..... All Pro Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 8,330	i wonder if death by shooting will be the new method imposed by al-queida? seriously, i wonder if there were discussions with top AQguys concerning beheadings and the bad publicity it brings.....or am i giving them too much credit? well, if the beheadings suddenly stop and the shootings begin then.....

06-29-2004, 10:23 AM	#10
jetman67 Wants a Superbowl, Thats It!!! Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Somewhere Posts: 10,380	[quote][i]Originally posted by dickkotite[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 08:39 AM [b] i wonder if death by shooting will be the new method imposed by al-queida? seriously, i wonder if there were discussions with top AQguys concerning beheadings and the bad publicity it brings.....or am i giving them too much credit? well, if the beheadings suddenly stop and the shootings begin then..... [/b][/quote] Is there really any difference? Killing is Killing. They were beheading hostages because of the more Dramatic effect with the public. Beheading is more work for the killers when they can simply put a bullet in someones head with alot less effort.

06-29-2004, 10:25 AM	#11
bman All League Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4,935	PLEASE will you stop with the ted keenedy bashing! How is the blood on his hands!..you sound ignorant..please stop.

06-29-2004, 10:26 AM	#12
jetman67 Wants a Superbowl, Thats It!!! Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Somewhere Posts: 10,380	[quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 10:25 AM [b] PLEASE will you stop with the ted keenedy bashing! How is the blood on his hands!..you sound ignorant..please stop. [/b][/quote] Are you saying that Teddy is an honorable man?

06-29-2004, 10:29 AM	#13
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	Richard Clarke worked for the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations he resigned, siting dangerous policies that were not allowing him to do his job... however in his book he claims the only administration that gave the terrorism problem ANY meaningful attention was the Clinton administration. and is it any surprise that this man, the very definition of bi-partisan is getting absolutely SLAMMED by the right as being nothing more than a guy trying to make a quick buck off a book. Riggins is right the true bastards are guys like Paul Wolfowitz. These guys led us to war for no real reason. Clarke knew it, many others know it... but according to the supporters of the President, EVERYONE is wrong, and Wolfy is right... <_< bringing Ted Kennedy into the discussion is a diversionary tactic, nothing more.

06-29-2004, 10:46 AM	#14
pope Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,979	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 10:29 AM [b] however in his book he claims the only administration that gave the terrorism problem ANY meaningful attention was the Clinton administration. [/b][/quote] You mean when Bin Laden was offered up to Clinton and he passed? You mean after the 93' WTC bombing when he did nothing? You mean after the 2 embassy bombings when he did nothing? You mean after the U.S.S. Cole bombing when he did nothing? Oh Yah that Slick Willy was one tough appeaser on those terrorists.

06-29-2004, 10:46 AM	#15
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 10:29 AM [b] Richard Clarke worked for the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations he resigned, siting dangerous policies that were not allowing him to do his job... however in his book he claims the only administration that gave the terrorism problem ANY meaningful attention was the Clinton administration. and is it any surprise that this man, the very definition of bi-partisan is getting absolutely SLAMMED by the right as being nothing more than a guy trying to make a quick buck off a book. Riggins is right the true bastards are guys like Paul Wolfowitz. These guys led us to war for no real reason. Clarke knew it, many others know it... but according to the supporters of the President, EVERYONE is wrong, and Wolfy is right... <_< bringing Ted Kennedy into the discussion is a diversionary tactic, nothing more. [/b][/quote] Bit- why, then, did Clark praise Bush's handling of the war on terror when he was on staff? This was AFTER the Iraq War was being planned. Why do his statements completely contradict one another, and what relationship do those contradictions have with (1) his financial incentive to hype a book and generate publicity for it (2) his frustration of NOT being appointed the job that Tom Ridge eventually got and (3) his desire to play a prominent role in a potential Kerry administration? None of these are worth even a cursory examination by your critical eye? Why didn't Clinton or Clarke do [i]anything[/i] about AQ during their tenure together, and after several attacks, even one on US soil?? Again, I am not blaming Clinton for this or that because the GOP or Richard Clarke, or the entire country wasn't on a "war footing" regarding terror until 9-11 showed us all how immediate the threat is, but to say that Clinton took terrorism "seriously" is simply empty, partisan rhetoric that is not even closely related to facts or actions. Talk about distractions, that is simply a statement that only a fool or an ignoramus would truly believe. It is revisionist history, with the intention of covering one's ass for failure. Every single member of government is engaged in a CYA operation, since it is clear that they ALL let us down and ALL didn't take terrorism seriously until 9-11 FORCED them to. It's not a partisan issue, but Clarke was the "terror czar" and he has some 'splaining to do, so he lashed out at Bush, tryin (feebly) to deflect attention from HIS failings, only after he was passed over for the Homeland job. George HW Bush, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and yes, Dubya ALL didn't take terrorism seriously enough. Some guy's book doesn't prove that - their [i]actions[/i] do. IMO, Dubya HAS taken it seriously enoigh after 9-11 and that is why I am voting for him, even in light of the gigantic and coordinated smear campaign being waged daily against him. You equate mistakes with nefarious intentions, and would rather concoct bizarre conspiracy theories and villify our leaders for defending us imperfectly, all while bending over backweards to give the benefit of the doubt to the people that are trying to kill you. The fact that you are arrogant about it makes it funny, IMO. You are willing to believe ANY conspiracy of the right, based on nothing but the words "Texas" "oil" and "Halliburton." Yet, when the other side has a potential or apparent conflict of interest, you dismiss it as ad hominem nonsense, even though ALL of your arguments against Bush are based on ad hominem, conflict of interest intuition. You honestly hate Bush more than you hate the terrorists, it seems. The "very definition of bi-partisan." That's hilarious. George Tenet served under the last two administrations. Was he bi-partisan? If so, why do you claim Bush "lied" about the war, when Tenet steadfastly denies hyping intel and told Bush on several occasions that the case was a slam dunk (saying so under oath)? I mean, I didn't like Clinton, but I didn't believe the Wag the Dog nonsense or anything. People need to grow the F up around here.....

06-29-2004, 11:32 AM	#16
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	5ever and Pope the bottom line is that the justification for war should be able to be summed up in 10 words or less. If it takes longer than 10 words to convey the reason why American troops have to die then it's a bulls--t war.

06-29-2004, 11:34 AM	#17
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 11:32 AM [b] 5ever and Pope the bottom line is that the justification for war should be able to be summed up in 10 words or less. If it takes longer than 10 words to convey the reason why American troops have to die then it's a bulls--t war. [/b][/quote] That's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it. I simply passionately disagree.

06-29-2004, 11:38 AM	#18
pope Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,979	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 11:32 AM [b] 5ever and Pope the bottom line is that the justification for war should be able to be summed up in 10 words or less. If it takes longer than 10 words to convey the reason why American troops have to die then it's a bulls--t war. [/b][/quote] I can sum it up in less than 10. TIES TO AL QEADA.

06-29-2004, 11:43 AM	#19
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	pope the Saudi gov't has ties to Al_Queda why don't we attack them? fact of the matter is Al_Queda cells are in 60 countries - we invaded just Iraq... why? like i said before if it takes a novel to rationalize the death of US Servicemen then their deaths are probably in vain. The US people know this and that's the reason why Bush's approval numbers are in the crapper.

06-29-2004, 11:44 AM	#20
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 11:42 AM [b] I can name that tune in six words. 'A towel is not a hat." What'd I win? [/b][/quote] you win a ride on any NYC taxi of your choosing maybe the next target for the US military should be the taxi depots? every 7-11 in the tri state area?