KERRY WAR COMRADES PREPARE BATTLE -- AGAINST KERRY

You even messed your link up. It went to the website of a "candidate" who doesn't even show up in the polls. That vote will hurt the country because it will help elect Keryr. That is the very type of thing I am talking about ... People are just not thinking about this issue ...

As for Novak's comments, I don't think that he is particularly incorrect, even though theologically misguided. If Bush is not reelected, it will largely be because of Iraq. Under his direction, 50 million people are now free for the first time in generations and have the same opportunity that we in America have ... to set up their own government in a democratic fashion. If that is the worst thing Bush does, then he will have a good record for history. Truth be told, that is not the worst thing he has done. It is among his few good achievements, even though the water has been rough.

Did you know that in 1944, there was a practice for D-Day where almost as many lives were lost as in the whole Iraq War?? That's right ... in one day, more than 700 American soldiers lost their lives in practice ... And it was intentionally covered up for the good of the cause in which we were fighting. There are times when the cause is so great, that extraordinary steps need to be taken. Perhaps this was one of those times.

BTW, did you see Gen Frank's book excerpts where he said that he was convinced by the president of Egypt and the king of Jordan that Saddam had WMDs and would use them on his troops. It shows that Bush wasn't lying ... that the whole world, including those close at hand believed the intelligence. It will be an interesting book. It may be the one out of all these nonsensical books that I will actually read.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-30-2004/0002222112&EDATE=

 

Yes, I do know about that.

 

Here's another example of a Bushbot/Bushinista/Bush kool-aid drinker from the ending of a letter to the editor in my local paper today that borders, I dare say, on being Bush worship:

"By the way, those weapons of mass destruction are there, and one day they will turn up."

I despise what this blind faith in President Bush has done to some of my fellow Americans. The Bush regime must be voted out of office this November. The Bush regime is, in my opinion, the most unAmerican administration in U.S. history. It is heavily influenced by a bunch of neocons/neo-Jacobins who are intent on globalism under the guise of building an American worldwide empire.

I say shame on you, shame on you all who claim to love this nation above all other nations and who claim to love liberty, if you vote for George W. Bush on November 2.

 

I am predicting that you will post against Bush at least another 5,000 times between now and November, Ken. And I am predicting that you will exit all discussions as soon as you see that what is being posted is not what you yourself agree with. By the way, how will Kerry be any better?

 

So what if they are? And what if they do? Then what will you say? Will you hang your head in shame and embarrassment for being so vocal about something you knew nothing about??

 

Larry, you must understand that Ken is a postmillenialist and wants Christianity to overtake the world. His bizarre theology has destroyed any ability to understand reality. Well, that and talking to his 7 "children". Snicker snicker.

 

Daniel David, I will warn you only once on this - leave any mention of my dogs out of your posts.

 

First off, I am not a postmillennialist.

Second off, yes, I want all people to become Christians, even you Daniel David, if you are not one already.

 

Ifs are not the same as stating that they exist as a fact as the Bushbot I quoted wrote.

If they are found, I don't know what I would say, but I doubt it will be something I will have to deal with.

On the other hand, Pastor Larry, how long must we wait until you will admit that there they are not there? Another year? Another two years? How long?

 

Ken, if Iraq is about the size of Texas, how long do you think it could take. You seem to have decided they don't exist in less than a year, when the rest of the world believed that they did exist.

 

There is no proof. I'm not going to wait 10 years for proof to be provided before making up my mind about it.

 

I am not convinced taht they are there. I lean towards the opinion that they are. Too many people said the same thing. If they are not somewhere, there was a huge conspiracy and cover up, a huge bluff. If they weren't there, I would be inclined to believe that Saddam would have said so, in order to forestall the action against him.

It will probably take a number of years to fully determine. The facts remain that there are close to a million tons of arms to go through, according to the current inspector. There are millions of documents to translate. And we have found some of the banned weapons.

 

And we know that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Niger.

 

Sorry mouse. Even Bush now admits those documents were faked.

And I'm very sure twenty years from now, mouse will still be promising that "soon" we will find those pesky WMD.

 

No, you can't link that, Galatian. The British government had a Butler Commission that confirmed it. Also, a former President of Niger has testified or given an affidavit that he himself was contacted by agents of Saddam for that purpose. Kerry is still claiming that it is false based upon errors in the Democrat Party's talking points.

 

Still continuing in denial, I see. It is a proven fact that Saddam was trying to buy Uranium from Niger. We talked about this a couple of weeks ago and showed you to be wrong. Bush did not use those documents as proof. The British intelligence preceded those documents. I showed you the comments of the Butler report and you were proven wrong.

One day soon, hopefully, you will learn ... Your method has gotten old. It is time to move on to honesty and straightforwardness.

 

Here is a statement from the Christian Science Monitor newspaper--which is hardly a Christian source:

The British commission, chaired by Lord Butler, suggests that there is more substance to the story of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa than has hitherto been suggested. The British report says evidence "was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium." But it documents visits by Iraqi officials to the uranium-exporting nation of Niger, and says that British intelligence from several sources indicating that the purpose was to acquire uranium "was credible."

This conclusion has political implications. On Sept. 24, 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that "Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, although we do not know whether he has been successful." On Jan. 28, 2003, in his State of the Union speech, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The Butler commission concludes that both statements were "well-founded."

Link to the entire article

 

I thought the War was not about what Saddaam was "trying to do" but that he actually had WMD's ready to launch within a short amout of time (was it 48 hours stated?). Is not this just changing and revising the reasons for War? The idea of attacking Saddaam for what he was "trying to do" is disturbing in itself.

 

It is very serious that Saddam was attempting to build a nuclear bomb. Kerry is still saying that Saddam was cleared of that charge. They are not up to speed on that point. It is startling that a candidate for US President is unclear about what we were up against at the time, as it goes to the meaning of his message. What Kerry is saying is what is "...disturbing in itself."

We went to war on the best worldwide information and also removed a tyrant guilty of many crimes against humanity.

If we had ignored that information, then it could have been charged that we were vulnerable to an attack and unsafe. If the information had been accurate and we had ignored it, we might have already have had another domestic attack. There is no pleasing the public.

The real lesson is that the destruction of the intelligence capability by Sen. Frank Church and others after the Viet Nam War was stupid and shortsighted--but then everyone said that it was a foolish error at the time. No nation builds an intelligence capability in a few years. It takes a long time to get informants and place operatives. We even placed restrictions on the morals of the informants. It does not matter who the informant is--what matters is that he is willing and able to give good information to the USA.

 

Searching for uranium most likely means that he had the capability of building nuclear weapons, or at least thought he was close to it. Why else would you search for it?

In addition, it was almost univerally claimed that he actually had the WMDs. Only hindsight reveals differently. Gen Franks reveals in his book that he was convinced of the WMDs existence by Egyptian president and the king of Jordan, who convinced him that Iraq would use them on the troops.

This backseat driving has gotten old. There were intelligence failures. There were not lies and both US and British reports have verified that.