Hillary Clinton attacked by Cindy Sheehan

[pilferk]

They couldve returned Sadaam to power and forgot the whole thing but what kind of message would that have sent to the world?

The message the current president's dad sent when they didn't get rid off the guy in the 1990s?


You trust your goverment, but not all of us are like that. Politicians very often forget they're supposed to serve the people and instead serve the purposes of their friends and their corporations. Happens all over the world. Not just in "uncivilized" and corrupt countries that nobody can even spell the names of.




/jarmo

I will definitely concede that point to u, I have no idea why they didnt do the job right the first time, that to me is unexcusable.

I dont agree or trust our government 100 percent, but they have access to info that I dont, plus a whole bunch of reputable world leaders thought Sadaam was a threat. Bush did jump the gun and mistakes were made but after 9/11, I feel Bush legitimately felt we had to act now.

hindsight is 20/20, I dont think its fair using the tool of hindsight to crucify someone.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23348.0

Turns out, though, it's not just hindsight.  They had information that their intel wasn't rock solid....even then.

They just didn't share it with everyone else.

[POPmetal]

The point is that even with the knowledge that the intel was not rock solid, you don't want to take the chance that it is and not do anything about it in a post 9/11 world.

Nobody was 100% sure that the evidence was solid, just as nobody was 100% sure it was not solid. Had Bush failed to act, and we later found out, say after a chemical bomb went off in Tel Aviv, that Iraq still had WMDs and was willing to sell them to terrorists, Bush would have been ripped apart a lot worse for failing to disarm Saddam than he is now. The only reason you're now able to slam Bush now is because it turned out the intelligence was wrong, and you have the advantage of hindsight.

[RichardNixon]

The point is that even with the knowledge that the intel was not rock solid, you don't want to take the chance that it is and not do anything about it in a post 9/11 world.

Nobody was 100% sure that the evidence was solid, just as nobody was 100% sure it was not solid. Had Bush failed to act, and we later found out, say after a chemical bomb went off in Tel Aviv, that Iraq still had WMDs and was willing to sell them to terrorists, Bush would have been ripped apart a lot worse for failing to disarm Saddam than he is now. The only reason you're now able to slam Bush now is because it turned out the intelligence was wrong, and you have the advantage of hindsight.

So why not bomb the whole world? After all, who knows who has what? Better to be safe than sorry.

[POPmetal]

The point is that even with the knowledge that the intel was not rock solid, you don't want to take the chance that it is and not do anything about it in a post 9/11 world.

Nobody was 100% sure that the evidence was solid, just as nobody was 100% sure it was not solid. Had Bush failed to act, and we later found out, say after a chemical bomb went off in Tel Aviv, that Iraq still had WMDs and was willing to sell them to terrorists, Bush would have been ripped apart a lot worse for failing to disarm Saddam than he is now. The only reason you're now able to slam Bush now is because it turned out the intelligence was wrong, and you have the advantage of hindsight.

So why not bomb the whole world? After all, who knows who has what? Better to be safe than sorry.

There is no reason to believe that India or France or Japan or United Arab Emirates or South Korea or most countries in the world are doing anything malicious. They aren't lying, delaying, and deceiving inspectors, and they aren't violating UN resolutions. Why bomb them?

[RichardNixon]

The point is that even with the knowledge that the intel was not rock solid, you don't want to take the chance that it is and not do anything about it in a post 9/11 world.

Nobody was 100% sure that the evidence was solid, just as nobody was 100% sure it was not solid. Had Bush failed to act, and we later found out, say after a chemical bomb went off in Tel Aviv, that Iraq still had WMDs and was willing to sell them to terrorists, Bush would have been ripped apart a lot worse for failing to disarm Saddam than he is now. The only reason you're now able to slam Bush now is because it turned out the intelligence was wrong, and you have the advantage of hindsight.

So why not bomb the whole world? After all, who knows who has what? Better to be safe than sorry.

There is no reason to believe that India or France or Japan or United Arab Emirates or South Korea or most countries in the world are doing anything malicious. They aren't lying, delaying, and deceiving inspectors, and they aren't violating UN resolutions. Why bomb them?

Better to be safe than sorry. After 911, who knows. We can't wait for the final proof to be a mushroom cloud. Fuck the world. Bunch of liberal, pinkos, what do they know. We should bomb everyone just to be on the safe side (sorry Jarmo, that means Sweden too, can't trust those guys). USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!

[SLCPUNK]

Wilson said the evidence was not there.

And guess what they did? The outed his undercover CIA wife, that is what they did.

So........

Who is the traitor to the American people, and military here? The Bush run White house, that is who. These guys lied through their teeth to go into Iraq, dismissing all reports showing a lack of sufficient evidence.

What is so funny, is how you guys still defend it, even though we all know the truth now.

Just stop it already. Fucking stop.

Bush's camp is imploding now. There is no denying this any longer.

They have just given Libby 5  counts, he is facing serious time. While at the same time they have not charged anybody else. Wonder why that is? They want him to role over on Chenney and Rove. With the time he is facing, he will give them up to save his ass. Nobody is doing 30 yrs for those dickheads I can tell you that much.

How much more do you guys want here?

I'm waiting for you to attack Fitz, along with the rest of the right. It is your style afterall. Anybody who reports the truth, or asks for accountability of this administration is automatically attacked as quickly as possible.

I've said the same thing since the very begining and it all is happening right now. However I never would have guessed that man of such integrity would stand up and say "enough", as Fitz is now. It is a great day in America when somebody decides to hold thugs and liars to the TRUE standard of America.

[SLCPUNK]

Richard Nixon I use to think that u at least had a clue but after your last post, i dont think I wanna debate with u any longer, If u think Sadaam and Axl are on the same level as a threat to our country, u are in need for some deep guidance and are too far gone to save.

Do you really think he was serious? 

Or do you think maybe it was an analogy to make a point?

[D]

Richard Nixon I use to think that u at least had a clue but after your last post, i dont think I wanna debate with u any longer, If u think Sadaam and Axl are on the same level as a threat to our country, u are in need for some deep guidance and are too far gone to save.

Do you really think he was serious??

Or do you think maybe it was an analogy to make a point?

I think he was dead serious.

He basically said Sadaam wasnt a dangerous man, I dont understand how anyone could believe he wasnt. Ask the kurds if he is dangerous or not.

After 9/11 u had to start asking the question What If.

IF Sadaam had nothing to hide, why was he being so deceitful?? He brought it upon himself.

All I hear is Left Wing anti War mumbo Jumbo all day long but I havent heard anybody give a strategy of how exactly to pull out of Iraq and avoid the mass slaughter of innocent people.

Monday Morning Quarterbacks can sit behind a screen and say, "Fuck Iraq, pull out, Fuck em"

But these are real lives here, Human beings who value life as much as u and I and everyone else, So how is it U Left Wingers are heartless and have absolutely no sympathy for what consequences pulling out of Iraq would bring?


I dont wanna hear about Rove or Bush, i dont wanna hear about Sheehan, I dont wanna hear about Mier

I wanna hear some kind of logical strategy.

Until then, U have no right to criticize and crucify someone with your hindsight.

The intelligence was wrong, Bush and the US fucked up, that is 100 percent correct, We know that already, but they tried to right a wrong and do something that shouldve been done a decade earlier.

Now we are in a war right or wrong, what can be done about it besides the ever so popular and intelligent; Pull out!

[D]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that isnt what we are discussing.

Post 9/11 means u take every potential threat seriously.

And the biggest threat was Iraq?

So Iraq had no WMD, fine but did u know that?? No of course not.

Some other people seemed to be sure they didn't have anything they weren't supposed to have.

They went to Iraq, found nothing but after they found nothing it was too late to turn back, they couldnt just put Sadaam back into power and walk away, so u get what we have now, a war to set up some kind of resolution once and for all in Iraq.

Look, they went to get the WMDs, then it changed to going there to liberate Iraq. Why wasn't the liberation of Iraq the main priority from the start?


The last Gulf War had a clear mission. Liberate Kuwait. Everyody could see that.

Same thing in Afghanistan. Get rid off the Taliban goverment. Easy to see why the soldiers went there and everybody supported it.


This time, things are a bit different.

"saddam was never a threat"

that's gotta be the quote of the year in these threads.

i can understand people being against the war from the beginning. but to make a claim like this shows how partisanship makes you blind to reality.

Khadaffi was a huge threat (Lockerbie anyone?) but you never saw USA go into Libya to liberate the people.


I don't think Saddam was the #1 enemy they want you to think he was.



/jarmo

Sadaam had sanctions, he didnt live up to them, that alone was enough to overthrow him.

Richard Nixon I use to think that u at least had a clue but after your last post, i dont think I wanna debate with u any longer, If u think Sadaam and Axl are on the same level as a threat to our country, u are in need for some deep guidance and are too far gone to save.

Was Sadaam our biggest threat? I dont know, I leave that up to the elected officials who we grant the power to make those decisions.

John Kerry thought he was a threat, Bill Clinton thought he was a threat, Blair, countless others.

Its easy to jump off a sinking ship when it comes back u were wrong but Bush doesnt have that luxury.

They couldve returned Sadaam to power and forgot the whole thing but what kind of message would that have sent to the world?

When I said Axl was a bigger threat to US security than Saddam, that was tongue-in-cheek, although it's true. John Kerry and the Clinton's jumped on the bandwagon, like most Democrats, so they wouldn't look weak. Although some stood up to Bush's bullshit from day one, like my hero, Ted Kennedy.

BTW, anyone who can't type out "you" instead of "U" demonstrates how ignorant they are.

And what "kind of message" have we sent to the world now?

Oh So its Ok for Democrats to Jump on a bandwagon and brainwash soldiers and send them to die so they won't look weak, but George Bush is a murderer?

U are a fuckin hypocrite dude.

Those Democrats are JUST AS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS GOIN ON RIGHT NOW AS BUSH IS.

so why is Bush the evil one?

I think Bush is a shitty president but I hate how he is singled out when he wasnt the only one who believed in this.

[RichardNixon]

Because Bush is the President and got us into this, this is his war. Yes, the dems were weak not to stand up to him, and many are hawks. But the buck stops with the president.

[SLCPUNK]

I think he was dead serious.

Then you are a damn fool.

He basically said Sadaam wasnt a dangerous man, I dont understand how anyone could believe he wasnt. Ask the kurds if he is dangerous or not.

He said he was not an immediate threat to the USA, which he WAS NOT.



Monday Morning Quarterbacks can sit behind a screen and say, "Fuck Iraq, pull out, Fuck em"

Better not even think about including me in that. Or hardly anyone else around here. I have said the SAME THING the entire time, as most people here have. So better get your facts straight.

But these are real lives here, Human beings who value life as much as u and I and everyone else, So how is it U Left Wingers are heartless and have absolutely no sympathy for what consequences pulling out of Iraq would bring?

You are building up something that is not true and tearing it down. Nobody hear has said they don't care about lives in Iraq. Yet I see double talk from your posts. First you say we gotta stick the war out, in which case more civilians will die. Then say the left is "heartless" towards those very same civilians for "wanting to pull out". Gimmie a fucking break.


I dont wanna hear about Rove or Bush, i dont wanna hear about Sheehan, I dont wanna hear about Mier

I bet you don't, because then you might have to answer some tough questions.

I wanna hear some kind of logical strategy.

I gave it...twice.

Until then, U have no right to criticize and crucify someone with your hindsight.

There is no hindsight dude. You had better get you facts straight before typing out this crap.

[Skeba]

The reason that Bush gets most the blame is, because he is the president. The call was - in the end - his.

And after all the info that's been leaked into the public, about how the white house lied to persuade people behind the war, I think, shows pretty well how premeditated, and thought out the whole plan was. It shows that they had chosen to go to Iraq, WMDs or not. There were a lot of democrats backing Bush's plans to attack, but as far as we know, they had the same amount of info as we did. I don't think almost anyone outside the white house had access to the latest intel on Iraq like George Bush had. He, and his crew _knew_ that the public wouldn't get behind an attack with the actual info that they had, so the bullshit idea of liberating Iraq was made. I remember seeing a thing on the news about a phone conversation or a letter (can't remember which) about how the intel did not justify an attack, and how it would not go over well as such to the general public.

I think the whole thing spun out of control when Osama turned out to be a bit harder to catch than people thought it would be. Something had to be done, and the no. 1 enemy changed from Osama to the "terrorist world". And since it's nice to have a face for an other wise distant term "terrorist world", Saddam was just perfect. The general public knows him, so no introduction was needed... This, of course, is not the full story, or the 100% truth, but from where I'm standing and what I've read, it's not all that far from the truth.

So he, and that administration is to blame for this mess. They had the facts, they distorted the truth about what Saddam was, and was not capable of. They made the calls. That's why the blame doesn't get "shared"  with everyone who was behind the attack. (I believe this was mentioned by someone already)

[RichardNixon]

Word is Bush 41 didn't approve of the invasion...

To call people against the war/invasion heartless is just bullshiit. In March/April of 2003, we took to the streets, all around the world and called a spade a spade, and said this was a terrible mistake. While you just shouted "USA! USA! USA!" and tied a yellow ribbon around your front tree and said "support the troops."

[sandman]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that isnt what we are discussing.

Post 9/11 means u take every potential threat seriously.

And the biggest threat was Iraq?

So Iraq had no WMD, fine but did u know that?? No of course not.

Some other people seemed to be sure they didn't have anything they weren't supposed to have.

They went to Iraq, found nothing but after they found nothing it was too late to turn back, they couldnt just put Sadaam back into power and walk away, so u get what we have now, a war to set up some kind of resolution once and for all in Iraq.

Look, they went to get the WMDs, then it changed to going there to liberate Iraq. Why wasn't the liberation of Iraq the main priority from the start?


The last Gulf War had a clear mission. Liberate Kuwait. Everyody could see that.

Same thing in Afghanistan. Get rid off the Taliban goverment. Easy to see why the soldiers went there and everybody supported it.


This time, things are a bit different.

"saddam was never a threat"

that's gotta be the quote of the year in these threads.

i can understand people being against the war from the beginning. but to make a claim like this shows how partisanship makes you blind to reality.

Khadaffi was a huge threat (Lockerbie anyone?) but you never saw USA go into Libya to liberate the people.


I don't think Saddam was the #1 enemy they want you to think he was.



/jarmo

Sadaam had sanctions, he didnt live up to them, that alone was enough to overthrow him.

Richard Nixon I use to think that u at least had a clue but after your last post, i dont think I wanna debate with u any longer, If u think Sadaam and Axl are on the same level as a threat to our country, u are in need for some deep guidance and are too far gone to save.

Was Sadaam our biggest threat? I dont know, I leave that up to the elected officials who we grant the power to make those decisions.

John Kerry thought he was a threat, Bill Clinton thought he was a threat, Blair, countless others.

Its easy to jump off a sinking ship when it comes back u were wrong but Bush doesnt have that luxury.

They couldve returned Sadaam to power and forgot the whole thing but what kind of message would that have sent to the world?

BTW, anyone who can't type out "you" instead of "U" demonstrates how ignorant they are.

So fuck you, you self-righteous douche.


2 personal attacks against D.   
i thought personal attacks were discouraged on this site. 
oh wait, i forgot, you're on the liberal side so it's ok. 


back on topic, i generally lean a little to the right. but if my views are in line with hillary, i don't think i'm being too partisan.

[RichardNixon]

I resent being called "heartless" because I was against the invasion of Iraq. The implication that I don't care about US soldiers or Iraqi civilians because I don't support the war is unfounded and makes no sense.  And I consider that a personal attack. I thought I made that clear.

Labeling people "liberal" (as though it were a bad thing) is just another stupid attempt to smudge opposition.

[sandman]

"saddam was never a threat"?

that's gotta be the quote of the year in these threads.

i can understand people being against the war from the beginning. but to make a claim like this shows how partisanship makes you blind to reality.

Actually, I rather think that asserting he WAS a threat, at any point during THIS administration, is the demonstration of partisanship.? Maybe he was PERCEIVED as a threat, but...well, the facts are the facts, hindsight or not.? Economic Sactions, we now know, had crippled his ability to actually BE a threat to anyone.? He had no chemical or biological ordinance, and, if he did, no way to deliver it to us.

 In addition, he certainly was NEVER, EVER a direct threat to the US, even during the first Gulf War.? He didn't have the technology to deliver anything dangerous anywhere NEAR us.? And what dangerous material he DID have was too bulky and obvious to deliver "in person" (ie: a suicide terrorist attack) on these shores.? A threat to foreign holdings or allies? Maybe.? But not a direct threat to this country.? And that's an undeniable fact.

we can agree to disagree.

IMO, anyone who has several UN Resolutions passed to try to control them, must be somewhat of a threat.

the guy is on trial for genocide and he had unlimited financial means.

clinton demanded a regime change. i think in part because he was a threat.

[Skeba]

Everybody has to stop with the name calling, and start discussing the issues instead. It's stupid, and if someone has to think that they need to use name calling as a way to drive their point through, they're at the wrong board. That goes for every conservative, liberal, non partial, whatever guy and girl here. And you all know better.. So why the fuck do I find ?that some of you need to be reminded of this rule every 2 weeks? If you feel that you're insulted by a member, count to ten before posting, don't just throw shit back at them.

To say someone is ignorrant just by the way they write isn't cool, just like calling people heartless isn't. Especially if they've opposed the war from the get go.

And please try to only quote the last thing you're replying to. If you don't know how, ask.

Okay... Back to matter at hand.

[sandman]

I resent being called "heartless" because I was against the invasion of Iraq. The implication that I don't care about US soldiers or Iraqi civilians because I don't support the war is unfounded and makes no sense.? And I consider that a personal attack. I thought I made that clear.

Labeling people "liberal" (as though it were a bad thing) is just another stupid attempt to smudge opposition.

where did anyone use the "liberal" term in a negative way???

i certainly didn't. so please don't try to say i'm making personal attacks.

take a deep breath and have a beer, bro. you seem really angry.
 

[RichardNixon]

   "oh wait, i forgot, you're on the liberal side so it's ok"
 
The use of the term "liberal" there is pejorative 

And no I am not angry.

But I don't understand why my cloths are all shredded and why is there a big whole in the wall? And what's this news story about a green giant running rampant in my town?

[D]

I love how Richard twists shit around.

Did I say people who didnt support the war were Heartless?  NO


I said people who think we can just pull out and have no regard for the Iraqi people there are heartless.

In the US we have this imaginary belief that our lives are more valuable and important than everyone else's lives.  I hear people all the time say "Fuck Iraq" 2,000 US soldiers are killed, 2,000 more will be killed, so fuck 1 million Iraqi's etc etc. I just dont understand how anyone can support Cindy Sheehan, I have no problem with LIberals hating Bush cause I dont like Bush either, but when it gets to the point that your hatred for Bush is so much, u start siding with nutjobs like Sheehan and then u have people believing Bush attacked his own country, it starts getting scary and out of hand.

There is a poster on my 2ksportsforum that has a thread saying he has video proof that Bush committed 9/11. Is our country so fucked that this possibility could exist? I mean its ludicrous to believe that.

SLC if u have given an exit strategy, I sure as fuck have missed it, cause I see a whole lot of bitching but no possible solutions.

Anyone can say, Impeach Bush, Kick him out of office but realisitically that wont happen.

i hear Democrats yellin to pull out, but how can we?


I dont wanna read 45 paragraphs, I want a post dedicated to a plausible, Possible exit strategy, nothing more or less.