Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: President Bush -- What a Guy!

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Wow! What a man -- what a President!

    Risks his life to fly to Iraq and have dinner with his troops.

    I don't care how you feel about the guy personally, professionally or politically -- that trip took balls. So much for not caring about the men and women he sends into battle.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Nov 28 2003, 03:14 PM
    [b] Wow! What a man -- what a President!

    Risks his life to fly to Iraq and have dinner with his troops.

    I don't care how you feel about the guy personally, professionally or politically -- that trip took balls. So much for not caring about the men and women he sends into battle. [/b][/quote]
    Amen brother............Couldn't agree more !

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET+Nov 28 2003, 05:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (MARYLAND JET @ Nov 28 2003, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Nov 28 2003, 03:14 PM
    [b] Wow&#33; What a man -- what a President&#33;

    Risks his life to fly to Iraq and have dinner with his troops.

    I don&#39;t care how you feel about the guy personally, professionally or politically -- that trip took balls. So much for not caring about the men and women he sends into battle. [/b][/quote]
    Amen brother............Couldn&#39;t agree more &#33;[/b][/quote]
    That&#39;s why I love our President; he&#39;s not perfect and does not think he is. But he is genuine and a man of his word&#33; (Unlike blowjob "I did not have sex with that woman" bill clinton&#33;"

    Check out the following link from Free Republic.com....you may have to go through the first page twice to realize what was happening but in a nutshell Free Republic is a conservative web site responsible for many of the "Support our Troops" rallies that have been held in our nation (to which I attended a pair, 2/15 & 3/23) and was big on slamming CBS for potentially airing that farce on former President Reagan.

    Bottom line; a lot of troops over in Iraq belong to the site and one of them posted the scoop on the President&#39;s arrival in Iraq two hours before the networks got it...and no one believed him&#33;

    [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1029949/posts]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1029949/posts[/url]

    Last time something like this happened a Freeper was updating people across America as the shuttle Columbia was entering the earth&#39;s atmosphere so they could following until it was suppose to land (sadly it did not). It was an amazing sets of posts that made the WSJ, NYT and CNN:

    [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/833885/posts]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/833885/posts[/url]

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    181
    Good move by Gdub to go see the troops, but we&#39;re discussing the wrong thing here. why are American troops in iraq?

    1) no distinct connection between taliban or al queda to saddam hussein or iraq
    2) weren&#39;t there supposed to be weapons of mass destruction?
    3) got oil?

    bring the troops back, we don&#39;t need to be there.

    i understand that supporting our troops 100% is vital and we shouldn&#39;t question a decision already made, but still. i thought the war was over some time in may. does anyone remember bush saying "the war is over..."?

    Dave

  5. #5
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    God's Country
    Posts
    896
    [quote][i]Originally posted by selee[/i]@Nov 30 2003, 11:56 AM
    [b] Good move by Gdub to go see the troops, but we&#39;re discussing the wrong thing here. why are American troops in iraq?

    1) no distinct connection between taliban or al queda to saddam hussein or iraq
    2) weren&#39;t there supposed to be weapons of mass destruction?
    3) got oil?

    bring the troops back, we don&#39;t need to be there.

    i understand that supporting our troops 100% is vital and we shouldn&#39;t question a decision already made, but still. i thought the war was over some time in may. does anyone remember bush saying "the war is over..."?

    Dave [/b][/quote]
    1) Yes there is a connection between Hussein and the Taliban. My work prevents me from discussing any evidence.

    2) yes and we are still looking for them. Is it possible there aren&#39;t any WMD is Iraq, yes.

    3) yes, but not from there.

    Bush was wrong, the war is not over and most of us still believe that what we are doing in Iraq is good and just&#33;&#33;

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by selee[/i]@Nov 30 2003, 12:56 PM
    [b] Good move by Gdub to go see the troops, but we&#39;re discussing the wrong thing here. why are American troops in iraq?

    Dave [/b][/quote]
    Why?....because we are fighting a war on terrorism and Iraq under Sadaam Hussien was a terrorist nation.

  7. #7
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    181
    i appreciate the support for the president, hey i voted for the guy, but when i look at cnn.com or nytimes.com and see X number of troops killed in some sort of accident it doesn&#39;t feel right.

    imho, i thought the main reason for entering iraq was because of the wmd&#39;s and not for the war on terrorism

    but either way, i hope the troops come home soon because im sick of us troops suffering b/c of a questionable motive

    dave

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by selee[/i]@Nov 30 2003, 03:16 PM
    [b] i appreciate the support for the president, hey i voted for the guy, but when i look at cnn.com or nytimes.com and see X number of troops killed in some sort of accident it doesn&#39;t feel right.

    dave [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re reading totally liberal/biased news. I read the Times as well, can&#39;t beat them for getting the story first and thorough, but their liberal slant is nauseating&#33; They were the only one&#39;s who *****ed about the President&#39;s trip to Iraq in Friday&#39;s paper.

    As far as CNN is concerned; two CNN pool reporters were told at the President&#39;s ranch on Wednesday, "go home there is no news" as they were purposely left off the trip to Bahgdead for fear they would blow the cover.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    And don&#39;t forget, though many conveniently do...the President always said a major purpose for going into Iraq was regime change....

  10. #10
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    God's Country
    Posts
    896
    Yes, we are suffering casualties, but the media is not reporting how many detainee&#39;s we are capturing each and day and well as the number of Iraqi&#39;s wounded and killed. The media is only telling part of the story.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by RblJet[/i]@Nov 30 2003, 01:44 PM
    [b] Bush was wrong, the war is not over and most of us still believe that what we are doing in Iraq is good and just&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
    RBL, I agree and concur with everything you said, however that quote has been purposely mischaracterized by the press on purpose.

    The banner and the Pres said, "Mission accomplished&#33;" He never said the war is over. But the mission was accomplished -- Saddam and the Baathists are finished as leaders in Iraq.

    The only evidence justifying the war for the liberals would be for Iraqis to have used a nuke in a blue dress on an American city, DNA stained by Saddam Hussein himself.

  12. #12
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    God's Country
    Posts
    896
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb+Dec 1 2003, 11:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Spirit of Weeb @ Dec 1 2003, 11:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--RblJet[/i]@Nov 30 2003, 01:44 PM
    [b] Bush was wrong, the war is not over and most of us still believe that what we are doing in Iraq is good and just&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
    RBL, I agree and concur with everything you said, however that quote has been purposely mischaracterized by the press on purpose.

    The banner and the Pres said, "Mission accomplished&#33;" He never said the war is over. But the mission was accomplished -- Saddam and the Baathists are finished as leaders in Iraq.

    The only evidence justifying the war for the liberals would be for Iraqis to have used a nuke in a blue dress on an American city, DNA stained by Saddam Hussein himself. [/b][/quote]
    You could be right. I can&#39;t say for sure if he did say it or not. But yes there is still a war and we should are there doing something about it.

  13. #13
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    181
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb+Dec 1 2003, 12:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Spirit of Weeb @ Dec 1 2003, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--RblJet[/i]@Nov 30 2003, 01:44 PM
    [b] Bush was wrong, the war is not over and most of us still believe that what we are doing in Iraq is good and just&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
    RBL, I agree and concur with everything you said, however that quote has been purposely mischaracterized by the press on purpose.

    The banner and the Pres said, "Mission accomplished&#33;" He never said the war is over. But the mission was accomplished -- Saddam and the Baathists are finished as leaders in Iraq.

    The only evidence justifying the war for the liberals would be for Iraqis to have used a nuke in a blue dress on an American city, DNA stained by Saddam Hussein himself.[/b][/quote]
    Spirit of Weeb,

    my mistake on claiming bush said the war is over. for the rest of you, here&#39;s the link from a cnn.com article dated may 2nd:

    [url=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/sprj.irq.bush.speech/index.html]http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05...eech/index.html[/url]

    but the part that scares me is that bush claims iraq is one victory in war on terror. what&#39;s he going to do next, send all the troops in iraq to iran? and every other country in the middle east that has terrorists living within their borders? this might sound rash but gdub has a history of acting on impulse...

    Dave

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    I don&#39;t think I&#39;d characterize the Afganistan or Iraq wars as "impulsive."

    What is YOUR strategy to deal with terrorism?

  15. #15
    "deal with terrorism"

    the WTC was a one-off event. If there was anything else in the pipeline it was disturbed by internal investigations and Patriot Act moves, not by conquering Iraq

    People call 9-11 the Pearl Harbor of our day but the metaphor couldn&#39;t be more flawed. The Japanese had an empire and an army with flags and uniforms. Terrorists are just schysty losers who got ballsy and lucky with a one-off event. The admin loves to blow up the threat when really there is no army of terrorists waiting to perpetrate a dozen 9-11&#39;s.

    The amount of money spent on war in Iraq they could fit SAM missles on every major US skyscraper and still have 100B to spare. This whole idea of "preemptive" war is ludicrous.

    Meanwhile ok even if you want to fight terrorism, the Admin turns a blind eye to the festering Saudi and Pakistani states, to foward its energy agenda in Iraq. You wanna "fight terrorism" fine but invading Iraq to do it would be like focusing the war on drugs in someplace like Panama when the real s**t is going on in Colombia and Bolivia.

    Good thing for Bush the American public is too stupid to know the difference between "ragheads"

  16. #16
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    181
    ill spare you all the petty details but my plan for the war on terror is as follows

    - remove troops in ME
    - public apology from Bush to the people of the world for all the evils of capitalism and all the mistakes that the US has made since the end of the cold war
    - listen to the UN
    - honor our treaties and promises made to various countries
    - have every US citizen read the internat&#39;l news section of a newpaper of their choice and find out what is going on in the world
    - embrace our role as world hegemon and use our power to help the world instead of conquer it for the sake of corporate america

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by selee[/i]@Dec 1 2003, 01:53 PM
    [b] ill spare you all the petty details but my plan for the war on terror is as follows

    - remove troops in ME
    - public apology from Bush to the people of the world for all the evils of capitalism and all the mistakes that the US has made since the end of the cold war
    - listen to the UN
    - honor our treaties and promises made to various countries
    - have every US citizen read the internat&#39;l news section of a newpaper of their choice and find out what is going on in the world
    - embrace our role as world hegemon and use our power to help the world instead of conquer it for the sake of corporate america [/b][/quote]
    No, seriously - what&#39;s your plan?

  18. #18
    selee you seem to new around the non-football forums and let me say its good to have someone who thinks for themselves around here, as opposed to certain AM radio junkies.

    so allow me tell you how it works

    you make a post that makes sense.

    either they call you a commie or

    5ever (who is actually clever so you have to watch him like a hawk) leaves a pithy one line response where he asks YOU questions and turn the issue AROUND on YOU, and then they go through your responses with a fine tooth comb, picking and pulling at every bit, pointing out inconsistancies as if you were on trial and by the time you are done with all that the original question is irrelivant.

    Another good trick is to take anything posted and attack its credibility. Its the old "attack the source not the message" routine.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 1 2003, 01:52 PM
    [b]
    the WTC was a one-off event. [/b][/quote]
    No it wasn&#39;t - Bush and the Jews CAUSED 9-11 just so they could get all of the moronic ditto-heads in the midwest and south to go along with their religious war against "brown people" for the sake of the almightly dollar. The word "terrorist" didn&#39;t even exist until 9-11-2001 and there are no "terrorists" in the world, even today.

    Just for the record - wasn&#39;t 9-11 actually the SECOND time the WTC was attacked by terrorists?

  20. #20
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    181
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 1 2003, 03:05 PM
    [b]selee you seem to new around the non-football forums and let me say its good to have someone who thinks for themselves around here, as opposed to certain AM radio junkies.

    so allow me tell you how it works

    you make a post that makes sense.

    either they call you a commie or

    5ever (who is actually clever so you have to watch him like a hawk) leaves a pithy one line response where he asks YOU questions and turn the issue AROUND on YOU, and then they go through your responses with a fine tooth comb, picking and pulling at every bit, pointing out inconsistancies as if you were on trial and by the time you are done with all that the original question is irrelivant.

    Another good trick is to take anything posted and attack its credibility. Its the old "attack the source not the message" routine.[/b][/quote]
    bitonti, thanks for the advice.

    jets5ever, you stated that you wouldn&#39;t characterize neither the war in afghanistan nor the war in iraq as compulsive. i agree with you that the war in afghanistan was not and neither was the war in yugoslavia to open up a new bag of worms. however whats not compulsive about UNILATERALLY waging war on a country when UN weapons inspectors are asking for more time? isn&#39;t the UN supposed to be an open forum in which to discuss world affairs so over 500 troops, a majority american, don&#39;t die? could you do me a favor and go to [url=http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/]this site?[/url] just scroll through all the names of all the troops who died. then look at their age, their hometowns and how they died. what was the purpose for this? the war on terror? is this the RIGHT way to fight this war?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us