Your a great man GWB!

[Tunaman]

One of my dearest friends, who happens to be a retired Marine sent me this. I thought it was a terriffic example of our Presidents character. Please read on...

What Kind Of Man Would Do Such A Thing?

At Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington DC recently the Sergeant Major
of the Army, Jack Tilley, was with a group of people visiting the wounded
soldiers. He saw a Special Forces soldier who had lost his right hand and
suffered severe wounds of his face and side of his body. The Sergent Major
of the Army wanted to honor him and show him respect without offending, but

what can you say or do in such a situation that will encourage and uplift?
How do you shake the right hand of a soldier who has none?
There was a man in that group of visitors who had his wife with him to
visit
the wounded. He seemed to knew exactly what to do. This man reverently took

the soldiers stump of a hand in both of his hands, knelt at the bedside and

prayed for him. When he finished the prayer, he stood up, bent over the
soldier and kissed him on the head and told him that he loved him.
A powerful _expression of love and Christ-like example, for one of our
wounded heroes.

What kind of a man would do such a thing?
The wounded man's Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush; President of the U.S.

This story was told by the Sergeant Major of the Army, at a Soldiers
Breakfast held at Red Arsenal, AL, and recorded by Chaplain James
Henderson, stationed there.

Pass it on... the press won't.






_______________________________________
Sent via the Warp Drive WebMail system.

[-Carnifex-]

It's propaganda in my eyes unless it's verified.

[Rooster]

Why would a liberal care about the truth? They never have before.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

I am a definitly an anti-Bush man, but if this wasn't a fabricated event. It was very honorable.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Rooster
Why would a liberal care about the truth? They never have before.

only you can turn a thread about a possible honorable event into a personal attack in two posts.

don't I feel like a hyporcrite now.

sorry for the somewhat hijacking of your thread Tunaman

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Rooster
Why would a liberal care about the truth? They never have before.

Did you just call me a Liberal?

Edit: Oh, I've got the perfect rebuttle for that. Not to mention I'm a conservative.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


Did you just call me a Liberal?

Edit: Oh, I've got the perfect rebuttle for that. Not to mention I'm a conservative.

lol...maybe rooster will shut up now with his incessant labeling.

edit- if this was about...al gore while he was in vietnam, rooster would be calling it liberal propaganda. SOMEONE would, and would ask for UNDENIABLE PROOF that it happened. but as long as it's about a republican, it is true. anyone who questions its validity is unpatriotic and a "stupid liberal."

[greg]

george bush is a tard

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


Did you just call me a Liberal?

Edit: Oh, I've got the perfect rebuttle for that. Not to mention I'm a conservative.

No you're not.

You've even said that you used to lean right when you were younger

[Restola]

Originally posted by impostal22
and would ask for UNDENIABLE PROOF that it happened. but as long as it's about a republican, it is true.
lol...you assume we're all republicans (or even like them).

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


No you're not.

You've even said that you used to lean right when you were younger


When I was younger; not now.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Restola

lol...you assume we're all republicans (or even like them).

fine. replace republican with "someone who agrees with your views," which is more accurate anyway.

[PolishSausage]

Originally posted by greg
george bush is a tard


You sir, are an idiot

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by PolishSausage



You sir, are an idiot

He is not really an idiot, just a person who expresses his opinion crudely, and with no supporting evidence.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


He is not really an idiot, just a person who expresses his opinion crudely, and with no supporting evidence.

Exactly, he's an idiot.

[FalconGuy016]

Someone should call the whitehouse and talk to one of their secretaries. I wonder if they'd release that kind of info... mabye I will.

[PolishSausage]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


He is not really an idiot, just a person who expresses his opinion crudely, and with no supporting evidence.

Whilst I may not agree with his opinion, my insult was mainly due to his lack of respect for Tunaman and his thread. I'm sure Tuna had no intentions of starting a political debate.

For whatever reason, greg felt the need to share his opinion, crudely as you stated, with no intention of adding anything of meaning to the thread, simply just being an idiot and being the catalyst that will more than likely spark a political debate.

But I do agree with you,MayAMonkey..., 100%

[-Carnifex-]

Then why didn't you call Rooster an idiot?

[ß?µ£ §mµ®ƒ]

maybe cause he left a pointless comment on his vew of Bush

[than205]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/injured.asp

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

no Rooster left a pointless comment on "liberal scum"

and boy do I love snopes

[Chojin Man]

Originally posted by PolishSausage
I'm sure Tuna had no intentions of starting a political debate.

Well any post about GWB is going to start a debate no matter what the topic is.

Good story. I pray for that soldier and the many like him. I also pray that they get all of their disability benifits.

[Fixion]

Guys, leave the flaming for PBN. This is AO. BTW good story Tuna.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Then why didn't you call Rooster an idiot?

took the words right outta my mouth..polish's logic is a bit flawed..

[Rooster]

Why should I offer proof for obvious statements of fact, especially to the likes of you? I would be glad to offer proof to those whom I have faith in their powers of rational thought.

If you don't want to hear from me, don't spew inane liberal crap on the boards.

[dansim]

here, rooster you a flaming retard

happy now


oh and great story, i too pray for the soldiers and appreciate their sacrifices, in my eyes bush is a good man:)

[ccaleb]

All I have to say, and it's very simple and to the point. God bless America and thank goodness that Bush is our president. :D

More importantly, to everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike (as well as all others), God bless America.

[mcveighr]

Hrmm, I wonder how he lost the arm? Isn't Bush the one who started the war? And caused him to lose an arm?

And isn't Bush the one that refused to sign the anti-landmine treaty? I don't see him praying for any civillians that get killed by mines that the US planted.


Prayers don't bring arms back.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by mcveighr
Hrmm, I wonder how he lost the arm? Isn't Bush the one who started the war? And caused him to lose an arm?

And isn't Bush the one that refused to sign the anti-landmine treaty? I don't see him praying for any civillians that get killed by mines that the US planted.


Prayers don't bring arms back.

You'd be wrong on both counts so I am glad you asked!

Saddam Hussien started the war. Way back he attacked his neighbors and then later refused to comply with UN sanctions. Later Clinton signed into law the act that called for his regime to be changed. Then Saddam refused still to comply and ejected the UN inspectors... and so forth until we enforced it.

Secondly it was Clinton that refused to sign the Landmine treaty. Here is a quote from a newspaper aticle from back then:

The Clinton administration says the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to an anti-land mine organization does not change the argument that high-tech "smart mines" will be needed for at least a few more years to protect U.S. troops.


"The president is absolutely rock-solid confident that he's got the right approach," said White House spokesman Mike McCurry.


McCurry said the United States favors eliminating land mines, which kill or maim an estimated 26,000 people a year. But it wants leeway for using land mines in Korea until an alternative weapon can be developed.


Now go study your history some more...

[aaron_mag]

Ah yes,

Both sides can't resist starting a debate about such an issue.

I don't doubt the story is true. Why wouldn't it be? It would be an amazing thing for a soldier to meet the president. Heck even I would be feel honored if I met GWB and you guys all know I pray for divine intervention in the election so that he will be defeated.

Oh and please don't start going off on "no GOD will support GWB...". Let us not go down that ridiculous road.

Do you know that GWB's father was SHOT DOWN in WWII? Can it be that he almost DIED for his country? Of course it can be.

Just because I totally disagree with GWB's policies doesn't mean that he might not have some good qualities as commader in chief. He made that soldier's life better at that one moment. That is a good thing and I'm glad he did it. Still, however, hoping that he does not get elected in 2004.

For me it is not personal. It is about policy.

[beam]

Another story we never heard in the press, from http://www.breakpoint.org :

January 06, 2004
No. 040106
At the Foot of the Cross
A Story You Haven't Heard

Angel Tree, our Prison Fellowship program for prisoners' children, is one of the great unheralded volunteer outreaches in America. Over the Christmas holidays these past few weeks, approximately 100,000 volunteers delivered Angel Tree gifts to more than 525,000 children of inmates.

You didn't read about this in the newspapers, nor would I expect that you should. It's not really that newsworthy that Christians help people in need. But there are two of our volunteers, who delivered forty presents, that I think you should have read about but didn't. For reasons best known to themselves, the media ignored the fact that two of the volunteers were President and Mrs. George Bush. And they delivered gifts to forty inner-city kids in a church basement three days before Christmas.

President and Mrs. Bush arrived at three-o'clock, Monday, December 22, at the Shiloh Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia. Now, presidents don't move anywhere without a great deal of fuss. The police were out, the roads blocked, and Secret Service were roaming around the church. And when the president arrived, he was accompanied not only by his own team, but also by a pool of reporters, forty or so members of the press. For ten minutes they popped their flashbulbs, scribbled their notes, and then were ushered out.

I remember from my days with President Nixon what photo opportunities are: Get the picture and leave. So I thought the Bushes would shortly depart, but they didn't. They stayed long after the cameras were gone to greet every child, to have their picture taken with them, their mothers, and their grandmothers, to talk with them, and to ask questions. Though the press didn't report it, I noticed that both the president and Mrs. Bush talked to the Hispanic children in Spanish.

Just before the president left, I introduced him to Al Lawrence, a member of our staff. I told the president that I had met Al more than twenty years ago in a prison. Jesus had got hold of Al's life, and he's been working for us ever since. Then I told the president that Al's son was now a freshman at Yale. At that point the president stopped, exclaimed, "We're both Yale parents," and threw his arms around Al Lawrence -- an African-American ex-offender being embraced by the president of the United States in a church basement. The ground is indeed level at the foot of the cross.

I tell you this story because it's a wonderful Christmas story, and you probably haven't heard it. With all those reporters who crowded into that basement, the visit resulted in almost universal media silence.

I suppose there are many explanations for this, but I'll offer mine. The president is a Christian who really cares for "the least of these," who does this not for photo ops, but because he's genuine. That is something that his detractors in the media simply can't handle. Conservatives caring for the poor? Never. It dashes the stereotypes.

But surely Christians ought to be rejoicing that the most powerful man in the world and his wife, a couple of days before Christmas, had a wonderful visit with the most powerless people in our society.

After all, that echoes the Christmas message, doesn't it? The most powerful came to be with the least powerful to give us hope.

[Rooster]

"here, rosster you a flaming retard"

Pssst. If you are going to call someone a retard, at least use proper grammer. Oh and spelling the person's name right would also be a good start.

LOL! Thanks for the laugh, today was sucking, but you brightened it right up.

[PolishSausage]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Then why didn't you call Rooster an idiot?

I apologise, I skipped right over his post and didn't read it. Rooster, same goes for you.

[mcveighr]

Don't give me that crap about not listnening to the UN. Bush had a plan for post war Iraq before he was president, he doesn't care what the UN says.

Maybe its cause Saddam made Daddy look like the fool he is a few years back.

[Tunaman]

Originally posted by beam
Another story we never heard in the press, from http://www.breakpoint.org :

January 06, 2004
No. 040106
At the Foot of the Cross
A Story You Haven't Heard

Angel Tree, our Prison Fellowship program for prisoners' children, is one of the great unheralded volunteer outreaches in America. Over the Christmas holidays these past few weeks, approximately 100,000 volunteers delivered Angel Tree gifts to more than 525,000 children of inmates.

You didn't read about this in the newspapers, nor would I expect that you should. It's not really that newsworthy that Christians help people in need. But there are two of our volunteers, who delivered forty presents, that I think you should have read about but didn't. For reasons best known to themselves, the media ignored the fact that two of the volunteers were President and Mrs. George Bush. And they delivered gifts to forty inner-city kids in a church basement three days before Christmas.

President and Mrs. Bush arrived at three-o'clock, Monday, December 22, at the Shiloh Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia. Now, presidents don't move anywhere without a great deal of fuss. The police were out, the roads blocked, and Secret Service were roaming around the church. And when the president arrived, he was accompanied not only by his own team, but also by a pool of reporters, forty or so members of the press. For ten minutes they popped their flashbulbs, scribbled their notes, and then were ushered out.

I remember from my days with President Nixon what photo opportunities are: Get the picture and leave. So I thought the Bushes would shortly depart, but they didn't. They stayed long after the cameras were gone to greet every child, to have their picture taken with them, their mothers, and their grandmothers, to talk with them, and to ask questions. Though the press didn't report it, I noticed that both the president and Mrs. Bush talked to the Hispanic children in Spanish.

Just before the president left, I introduced him to Al Lawrence, a member of our staff. I told the president that I had met Al more than twenty years ago in a prison. Jesus had got hold of Al's life, and he's been working for us ever since. Then I told the president that Al's son was now a freshman at Yale. At that point the president stopped, exclaimed, "We're both Yale parents," and threw his arms around Al Lawrence -- an African-American ex-offender being embraced by the president of the United States in a church basement. The ground is indeed level at the foot of the cross.

I tell you this story because it's a wonderful Christmas story, and you probably haven't heard it. With all those reporters who crowded into that basement, the visit resulted in almost universal media silence.

I suppose there are many explanations for this, but I'll offer mine. The president is a Christian who really cares for "the least of these," who does this not for photo ops, but because he's genuine. That is something that his detractors in the media simply can't handle. Conservatives caring for the poor? Never. It dashes the stereotypes.

But surely Christians ought to be rejoicing that the most powerful man in the world and his wife, a couple of days before Christmas, had a wonderful visit with the most powerless people in our society.

After all, that echoes the Christmas message, doesn't it? The most powerful came to be with the least powerful to give us hope. Bravo! ;) :o

[PolishSausage]

Originally posted by mcveighr
Don't give me that crap about not listnening to the UN. Bush had a plan for post war Iraq before he was president, he doesn't care what the UN says.

Maybe its cause Saddam made Daddy look like the fool he is a few years back.

Perhaps you could explain what this has to do with Tunaman's post?

[RoadDawg]

I'm not a Bush fan but if this is true and not for propoganda purposes then it's indeed honorable. Now if this had been about a Dem. people would be saying the same thing about it being propoganda. Each person/party has their own agenda. Bush has his good/bads and so has every president for that fact. The problem with a 2 party system is that both sides always blame the other for the problems and don't work with each other to advance. That's why I think people should learn about each candidate and look past the R or D on the ballot and vote on the best issues and candidate. We are digging our future people a huge hole. If the candidate doesn't come through then vote him out.

Personally I think political figures are ruining this country. They might be the ones in charge but they all seem to have money where the average person doesn't. Bush family have their oil and many others have similar. They mainly look to make their wallets fatter and the poor people poorer. Anyways. I'm done.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by mcveighr
Don't give me that crap about not listnening to the UN. Bush had a plan for post war Iraq before he was president, he doesn't care what the UN says.

Maybe its cause Saddam made Daddy look like the fool he is a few years back.

Ok...I sorry but I gotta say this... some of our other liberal rabble rousers at least make some sense when they post. You do them an injustice. I showed ya were you was wrong before earlier in your rambling mistaken history book you want to write... and now you come back with more similar incoherant nonsense. For one thing thats the most rambling incoherant thing I ever read! A bunch of disjointed misconnected brain cell misfiring synapse lapses in a row. All in one big breath. I have not one clue what you even said. They way I read your statement up there you are supportive of the Bush agenda, and then not, and then again are, and then not!!! All in one sort of sentence! And it really is in response to NOTHING in the thread! I got no idea what your on but you need to get off of it. Make some sense and maybe review what you post first. At least make some sense.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Rooster
Why should I offer proof for obvious statements of fact, especially to the likes of you? I would be glad to offer proof to those whom I have faith in their powers of rational thought.

If you don't want to hear from me, don't spew inane liberal crap on the boards.

Are you talking to me?

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

I believe he is talking to anyone that disagress with him

[than205]

In the light of fairness:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/angel.asp

[impostal22]

Originally posted by RoadDawg
I'm not a Bush fan but if this is true and not for propoganda purposes then it's indeed honorable. Now if this had been about a Dem. people would be saying the same thing about it being propoganda. Each person/party has their own agenda.

ya..that's exactly what i said..then i was insulted by rooster...big surprise:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

the point is, you guys..is not whether or not this whole event makes us teary eyed with a sense of something honorable and patriotic happening. the point is...some of us don't necessarily just accept the story as truth. considering our country's (and EVERY country's, for that matter) history of propaganda, why would anyone just accept a story like this? i mean, it obviously makes bush look a whole lot better. and as some people posted, something like this supercedes the political boundaries of hatred for bush and his policy. that's the point- it's something so powerful it would unite both sides of the political spectrum into thinking, for just one second, "wow." and the POINT is, that if this were about al gore while he were in vietnam, some people (i won't mention any names) would call the story "inane liberal crap" coming from someone they imply are incapable of rational thought.

this type of hypocrisy (and the childish personal attacks which i have become more than used to, sadly) are bound to get people angry, especially when they're on the receiving end.

[Rooster]

I could care less if someone posted a story about Howard Dean saving a cat from a burning house. Good for him.

Post something patently stupid like "universal free health-care makes good sense in a free-market economy" and i'll tell you are an idiot.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
It's propaganda in my eyes unless it's verified.

Rooster did not start the hijacking, Carnifex posted first!

Very touching!

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Rooster
Post something patently stupid like "universal free health-care makes good sense in a free-market economy" and i'll tell you are an idiot.

You've chosen an apt moniker. Wonderful bird-brained attitude of agree with me or you're an idiot.

As for the stories being true or not/published or not: It may be that GWB asked that they not be covered. Now THAT would be a true sign of honour. Doing service and helping without looking for political payback.

But it's incredible that the Republican/right wing views on AO are tollerated so liberally while political discussion is supposed to be forbidden. I'd have thought that as soon as GWBs name was mentioned the political alarm bells should have gone off.

That and having political campaign pics in sigs.

Guess it's time to get a democrats in 2004 logo in my sig.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


That and having political campaign pics in sigs.

Guess it's time to get a democrats in 2004 logo in my sig.

We don't care, you can't vote here!:p

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


You've chosen an apt moniker. Wonderful bird-brained attitude of agree with me or you're an idiot.

As for the stories being true or not/published or not: It may be that GWB asked that they not be covered. Now THAT would be a true sign of honour. Doing service and helping without looking for political payback.

But it's incredible that the Republican/right wing views on AO are tollerated so liberally while political discussion is supposed to be forbidden. I'd have thought that as soon as GWBs name was mentioned the political alarm bells should have gone off.

That and having political campaign pics in sigs.

Guess it's time to get a democrats in 2004 logo in my sig. Ever notice how there are no mods that arent conservatives?

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
Ever notice how there are no mods that arent conservatives?

They seem at least a little open-minded. But the crap Rooster puts out would earn a liberal poster a short vacation. Threads of a similar but liberal nature have been shut down almost immediately after the AO Right blasts in with attacks and quick complaints to the moderators.

Granted I'm from pinko-commie Canada, and even some of the ideas from our conservatives would rankle died-in-the-wool American Republicans. :rolleyes:

More than a few of the voices on AO could learn well to attack ideas and not people. Lables and name-calling just highlight how narrow-minded and unwilling to question your beliefs you are.

Pathetic ad hominem attacks don't phase me. Just take solace that they're too feeble to utter coherent thought.

[Rooster]

Its not a idea posting on this message board, now is it. And if the mods want to cut out all political discussion, fine. But as long as a liberal is left on these forums to post garbage, I'll be around to post the truth.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
Its not a idea posting on this message board, now is it. And if the mods want to cut out all political discussion, fine. But as long as a liberal is left on these forums to post garbage, I'll be around to post the truth.

you soothsayer, you:o

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Granted I'm from pinko-commie Canada, and even some of the ideas from our conservatives would rankle died-in-the-wool American Republicans. :rolleyes:

Are you sure you aren't a centrist like other posters here? ;)

More than a few of the voices on AO could learn well to attack ideas and not people. Lables and name-calling just highlight how narrow-minded and unwilling to question your beliefs you are.

Pathetic ad hominem attacks don't phase me. Just take solace that they're too feeble to utter coherent thought.

That goes for both sides right?:D

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
When I was younger; not now.

That's my point. How can you not lean right, but be conservative?

ugh.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by mcveighr
And isn't Bush the one that refused to sign the anti-landmine treaty? I don't see him praying for any civillians that get killed by mines that the US planted.


And what would that have done?

No seriously, you think the Iraqi army would be rolling into the battle and Captain Bob would have yelled back "Hey guys, leave the landmines in the shed, we're not supposed to use them".

Puh-lease.

Landmines happen to be a very important tool for war. They allow you to deny territory without a commitment of forces. Landmines save lives! (since landmines reduce the risk of firefight for a given piece of land)

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by mcveighr
Maybe its cause Saddam made Daddy look like the fool he is a few years back.

Then why call attention to it by kicking up the war again?

That's a very weak posistion, and some people seem to love taking it. I would not for a moment think any commander in chief to be so reckless as to put lives in danger because daddy looks foolish. I wouldn't even accuse Clinton of such a thing, and I truly loathe that man.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


That's my point. How can you not lean right, but be conservative?

ugh.

I do lean right, if I said that I didn't I must have been drunk. :D

[Butterfingers]

Originally posted by mcveighr
Don't give me that crap about not listnening to the UN. Bush had a plan for post war Iraq before he was president, he doesn't care what the UN says.

Maybe its cause Saddam made Daddy look like the fool he is a few years back.

Please... Do your research before making such comments Regime Change In Iraq has been a long standing policy of the United States.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY Cphilip... beutifully stated I must say...

Acts of Iraq preceeding now:

1980 Invasion of Iran
1988 relocation and killing of between 50,000 and 180,000 Kurdish Civilians
1990 Invasion of Kuwait
1993 Attempted Assasination of Former President Bush
1994 Staging of 80,000 troups near Kuwait
1996 begining of trend to deny weapons inspectors access to facilities and documents as required by the UN

Now lets look at the previous Administrations actions towords Iraq and thier perception of the "threat" that was posed.

October 31st 1998 President Clinton signs the "Iraq Liberation Act" which states "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Taken straight from the Act itself.

Same year 1998 Clinton orders the bombing of Iraq in attempt to kill Saddam. Operation Desert Fox. On the eve of that bombing he gave a speach in which he states "Mark my words, (Saddam) will develop weapons of mass destruction and will deploy them and he will use them." Direct quote.

So you see the escalation and threat was well established prior to 911. And the escalation of events against regimes that might promote or harbor terrorist activities was already in place. At least the threat they posed to the US is clearly understood.

Now a year later after President Clinton signing the Act and launching Desert Fox, he came under critisism for not doing any more to uphold the Act and force compliance in Iraq.

Senator Joe Lieberman wrote to President Clinton August 11th 1999 the following "There is considerable evidence that Iraq continues to seek and develop weapons of mass destruction. The whole point of Operation Desert Fox was that we could not afford to wait until Saddam reconstituted his WMD capabilities." He wrote this in concern that the President had done little to enforce the Act. And done little about the continued threat. As it was precieved long before.

Now... it should be no suprise to anyone that the threat continued under the following Administration. It was policy and it was in fact Law. And nothing had changed from that point in 1998. Except for 9/11. And in fact had worsened as far as compliance with UN inspection. And more time had passed.

Those are the facts and all that is FOI stuff. So you can research it yourself if you like. Its all public record.

Now the idea of escalation after 9/11 was the growing theory that you can target regimes where global terrorism might find safe harbor or even sympathetic and monetary support. You cannot really target shadowy groups but you can deny them safe harbor and cut off thier life line. So right or wrong these regimes that are international stability threats come under even more scrutiny. And as you see already had anyway. It should be noted that Lybia has rolled over since this all came about. An admitted Terrorist supporting regime. I mean not only have they admitted it but they have payed restitution and expelled the particular terrorists. No argument now that they had harbored them. Its a fact. And they recently complied with UN weapons inspections. So the argument that you can indeed negatively affect Terrrorist groups by targeting regimes that might harbor or support them in some way is actually showing that it is the case. Wether we like it or not. Or protest its not so or not. There is some evidence it indeed is working. And pleanty of historical evidence that the path we chose preceeds current administration and follows past administrations conclusions. Not some whim of current administration. Wise men that know all the facts often come to the same conclusion. And in this case it appears so.

Just something to put it all in perspective and to put some facts out on the table.

Bush just had the balls to do it.

If you want more details speak to Cphilip.

Seemingly the overwhelming majority of people who critisize Bush are the underinformed... or people with too much time... or conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately we have wayyyy to many of these two types in this country.

If you want to critisize have the hard facts to back it up.... otherwise your just basing your opinion SUBJECTIVELY not OBJECTIVELY.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Butterfingers

Just something to put it all in perspective and to put some facts out on the table.

Bush just had the balls to do it.

this is all very true (obviously), but the fact of the matter is that bush did some not-so-presidentially-sound things to get us into iraq.

first and foremost, he used the saddam-osama reason to try to convince the public he was in the right. this when osama was recorded saying that he'd love to take out saddam (he was declared a socialist infidel who leads an apostate regime). they HATE eachother, there ain't no link there.

"saddam has WMDs" where?????????????

"saddam bought weapons grade uranium from niger" -- this was the *false* report the FBI gave the president. the FBI even admitted to being pressured by the white house to produce evidence for going into iraq, and they came up with this. they urged the white house to allow time to verify the source, but the white house used it immediately. with time, the FBI discovered it was not actually a reliable source and the declared the document as forged.

so many people will argue that clinton was a bad president/person because he lied about having sexual relations with monica lewinsky. yet when people argue that bush is a bad president for lying about a saddam-osama link, which in turn caused thousands of iraqis to die (and hundreds of u.s. servicemen), they are pinko commies who spew crap.

let's not even mention that the bush campaigners put subliminal messaging in their advertisements prior to the 2000 election (if you forget, try remembering back to that summer...when it was revealed that they flashed the image of a rat when they were talking about the democrat opponents).

[Butterfingers]

Personally I think Clinton was a excellent president albeit with some flaws. The same thing with Bush excellent with some flaws. The two men have diffrent approaches granted.

Personally I could have cared less if Clinton Slept with Britney Spears. As long as hes running this country right I dont care. I would have probably voted for him in 2k if his term limit wasent up.

However Bush has demonstrated to me his good character and Personally I agree with his policy. He does things a little bit diffrent but hes still getting stuff done.

However wether it is true or not that bush "pushed" the white house to make hasty jugdements is questionable. The Evidence Presented to the house was more than adequate to convince the appropriate number of people to send the nation to war. The issue was pressed by MANY members of congress even BEFORE bush came into office. And I seriously doubt Bush could have made it all up.


Bush "pushing" image is basicly the media's perception of the issue when there is MUCH MUCH more to consider. The media could have stressed The suffering people in iraq, or the failure to comply to UN weapons inspections. BOTH of which were mentioned MULTITUDE of times by the administration.

But what the media decided to run on was WMD... thus we get the perception that this war was based on WMD based on the fact that CNN hammered it into our head once every 3 minutes.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Butterfingers
But what the media decided to run on was WMD... thus we get the perception that this war was based on WMD based on the fact that CNN hammered it into our head once every 3 minutes.

i'd agree with you that the media is to blame, BUT...we shouldn't forget that every major news station is owned by one of the "big 5" (the big 5 mega corporations that own basically all there is to own in this country). the corporations have direct influence over what does and what does not get aired...and we all know how much corporations are linked to politics. note: this works against both sides of the political spectrum, not just liberals.

oh and he really couldn't use the suffering people thing as a cause for war, OR the un inspections thing...the suffering people thing could easily be turned against him, and applied to many other countries. emphasizing the un inspections would backfire on him, because the un (the creators of the requirements) didn't want to go to war. so, the safest motive to go with is the WMDs route. it certainly convinced thousands if not millions that saddam was a direct threat to the USA because he had ICBMs (i've had multiple people tell me that, which scared me every time). and if the WMD thing didn't work, the 9-11 cause is obviously going to be reliable; who can argue with tragedy? i also had many people tell me they believed saddam had a hand in the 9-11 attacks, which is probably even scarier.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


i'd agree with you that the media is to blame, BUT...we shouldn't forget that every major news station is owned by one of the "big 5" (the big 5 mega corporations that own basically all there is to own in this country). the corporations have direct influence over what does and what does not get aired...and we all know how much corporations are linked to politics. note: this works against both sides of the political spectrum, not just liberals.


:rolleyes:

Uhm you are wrong. The networks are owned by large corporations, but most of the stations are affiliates and independently owned. Thus have their own editorial content, kind of like newspapers.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


:rolleyes:

Uhm you are wrong. The networks are owned by large corporations, but most of the stations are affiliates and independently owned. Thus have their own editorial content, kind of like newspapers.

by "major news station" i meant the networks. did you really think i meant anything different?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


by "major news station" i meant the networks. did you really think i meant anything different?

So the 5 major news networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN are owned by five mega corporations? Wow you know your math.:rolleyes:

So you are saying that GE, NewsCorp, Disney, Time Warner, and Viacom own everything there is to own in America? Shhhh don't tell Exxon, Citigroup, General Motors, ADM, and the rest of the Dow or S&P about your revalation, they might get jealous.:rolleyes:

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


So the 5 major news networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN are owned by five mega corporations? Wow you know your math.:rolleyes:

So you are saying that GE, NewsCorp, Disney, Time Warner, and Viacom own everything there is to own in America? Shhhh don't tell Exxon, Citigroup, General Motors, ADM, and the rest of the Dow or S&P about your revalation, they might get jealous.:rolleyes:

ok, i won't:D

[Rooster]

"this is all very true (obviously), but the fact of the matter is that bush did some not-so-presidentially-sound things to get us into iraq."

Not presidentially sound? The liberal hates president Bush, and so the first thing they cry is that "He lied to me!"
I'm sorry, but you arn't quite important enough to lie to. Bush gave many reasons for going into Iraq, some panned out, some didn't. He never promised you anything.

Btw, when our friend Billy-bob Clinton lied to the courts, the liberals were the first ones to jump to his defense.

The liberal is a crying child throwing a tantrum, screaming and stamping their feet becuase no one likes them anymore. The majority of the country has seen the errors of the idiotic way of thinking they espouse. A few more crushing defeats should seal their fate. The end can't come soon enough.

[-Carnifex-]

Rooster, why do you even post? No one wants to hear it. It's like you're trying to be a valid poster like Albino or 1DE but can't quite get over your liberal hatred to use logic.

It seems to me that WMDs were pushed as the main reason for invading Iraq, so "he lied to me!" would be very much true up to this point (Not to say that I don't support the war.).

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Rooster

The liberal is a crying child throwing a tantrum, screaming and stamping their feet becuase no one likes them anymore. The majority of the country has seen the errors of the idiotic way of thinking they espouse. A few more crushing defeats should seal their fate. The end can't come soon enough.

Actually a liberal is

liberal

\Lib"er*al\, n. One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer; in English politics, a member of the Liberal party, so called.

and, Rooster can you post a rebuttle without attacking someone.

And the fact is Bush, said Iraq has WMD's or atleast the cababilities to produce them. And as of now, none of that has panned out. So saying he lied is perfectly just statement.

[Trina]

Wow, it's amazing to hear stories like that and to be reminded that our great leaders still have compassion. It's no one's fault but the enemy's that wounded that soldier and many others. That is the job of the soldier to fight for his country.

Right now my husband, Doobie, is in Iraq and could possibly face a similiar fate as this soldier...so please everyone, stop for a moment. Put yourself in that soldier's shoes for just a minute and imagine what it would be like to lose a hand...it may affect how you play paintball, or even just putting your clothes on in the morning. All kinds of stuff like that must have been running through this soldiers head...what a great feeling that must have been at that moment in time, for the president to have offered such compassion and encouragement.

Regardless of whether you like him or not, GWB is truly a compassionate man. Please don't talk smack about him on this thread, instead pause for a moment and think about that poor soldier and what he has sacrificed for our freedom.

[Rooster]

"Rooster, why do you even post? No one wants to hear it. It's like you're trying to be a valid poster like Albino or 1DE but can't quite get over your liberal hatred to use logic."

At one time I thought like deadeye and albinonewt, that liberals were simply misguided, and logic could persuade them to reason. Logic does not register in the liberal mind, for if it did, they could never justify the hipocrisy of their every thought. I do not use logic when dealing with a liberal, becuase I know they do not understand it. I use the one thing the liberal mind can understand, passion.


"lib -er -al, blah, blah, blah, blah"

And if I had a dime for everytime some liberal posted the Webster's deffinition, I would be spending my time investing it, instead of typing to the likes of you.

[Miscue]

Need to simmer down a bit... :p

[bratch]

Anybody who listened to Sean Hannity over the summer should have the greatest "He lied to us" comeback. Pure gold.

Just like to stir the fire a little:)

Trina gracias for your hubby and all our good men around the world I think we can all agree on that. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Green, Independent, male female...I think everyone gets the point.

[Chojin Man]

Originally posted by bratch
Anybody who listened to Sean Hannity over the summer should have the greatest "He lied to us" comeback. Pure gold.

Nope missed that one. Can you tell it to us?


AlbinonewtLandmines happen to be a very important tool for war. They allow you to deny territory without a commitment of forces. Landmines save lives! (since landmines reduce the risk of firefight for a given piece of land)

I can see how they can saves lives of soldiers in a war(most are designed to mame not kill), but after the war is over you have all of these active mines, sometimes close to civilians; they can cause real problems.


RoosterThe liberal is a crying child throwing a tantrum, screaming and stamping their feet becuase no one likes them anymore. The majority of the country has seen the errors of the idiotic way of thinking they espouse. A few more crushing defeats should seal their fate. The end can't come soon enough.

The country is divided pretty evenly between Dem. and Rep. with the largest group being the Independants. Just look at the last election it was one of the closest elections ever. I'm not sure, but didn't Gore win the popular vote? You think that just because a Republican(Bush) wins one election that the majority of the country will be conservative from now on, forever? Dream on.


RoosterI do not use logic when dealing with a liberal, becuase I know they do not understand it. I use the one thing the liberal mind can understand, passion.

When you don't use logic and reasoning in your posts, but instead turn to name calling and personal attacks that makes your arguements fall on deaf ears. It also shows that you really don't have any good arguments to represent your ideas. So if they weren't listening to you before they REALLY won't give your statements a second thought now. No matter how much you kick and scream and cry and call names. Ease up Rooster not EVERYONE has to agree with you or will. Accept it, its part of becoming a mature adult.



That really long post by cphillip.
Interesting stuff I didn't know that the U.S. had such a long history trying to get a regime change in Iraq.

[bratch]

In his speech after launching preemptive strikes on Iraq the President stated...

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons"...

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces"

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors"

He then asked his guest, mainly those stating the President has lied in his reasoning, for their responses. Anyone care to guess the outcome?

[logamus]

i cannot wait for november. political discussions on this board are giving me tired head. espically since certain posters cannot post without insults.

while the original post in this thread is shown by snopes to be sorta true the one beam posted is true. i think gwb is a good man, a man that does care. i believe the war was right and just. i have a deep respect for those in uniform who risk their very lives to ensure mine is better tomorrow than it is today.

lets try to remember our lesson from bambi and end the pointless insults and personal attacks.

[Rooster]

"When you don't use logic and reasoning in your posts, but instead turn to name calling and personal attacks that makes your arguements fall on deaf ears. It also shows that you really don't have any good arguments to represent your ideas. So if they weren't listening to you before they REALLY won't give your statements a second thought now. No matter how much you kick and scream and cry and call names. Ease up Rooster not EVERYONE has to agree with you or will. Accept it, its part of becoming a mature adult. "

They obviously do not, or no one would take the time to respond. But you would have to use logic to reason that out. I have arguments that are miles long, and well reasoned, but I don't use them. Why? Because those are what fall on deaf ears. I am turning the liberal's tired old tactic on them. Becuase they lack the powers of reason, they imediately cry some tired old matra like: "What about the children! Please think of the children!" And of course the liberal's first reaction is to pretend they've never used it. Quite hilarious, but not unexpected. I don't care if anyone agrees with me, but thats not going to stop me from telling liberals what I think of their backwards thinking.

And, as I've said before, if you don't want to hear from me, don't post liberal tripe on the boards.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
Actually a liberal is

liberal

\Lib"er*al\, n. One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer; in English politics, a member of the Liberal party, so called.

That's not really what a liberal is anymore though. A liberal in the traditional sense in a lot of ways favors less freedom. The constant war against the Christian religion is an example of the favoring of less freedom in that regards. The restricting of the right to own firearms, although in many instances is the right thing to do, is not a blow for greater freedom. The capaign finance reform act was an exercise in restricting freedom. The various diversity requirements is an exercise in restricting freedoms. The refusal to allow personal control over social security (private invetment) is a restriction of freedom.

Now, some of these concepts can be argued to be good and worthwhile, but they are still restrictions on freedom.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by greg
george bush is a tard

and you, sir, are an idiot. you have your right to express your opinion, but then again, so do I ;).

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Chojin Man
I can see how they (landmines)can saves lives of soldiers in a war(most are designed to mame not kill), but after the war is over you have all of these active mines, sometimes close to civilians; they can cause real problems.


The problem is most of the places where there's still a landmine problem are places that continue to be a hot zone, where even when the wars are over they're still being fought. We don't still have landmines along the major highways in France (although that gives me an idea). We picked them up when the war was over. We don't need to sign an anti-landmine treaty because we're already resposible with them.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


That's not really what a liberal is anymore though. A liberal in the traditional sense in a lot of ways favors less freedom. The constant war against the Christian religion is an example of the favoring of less freedom in that regards. The restricting of the right to own firearms, although in many instances is the right thing to do, is not a blow for greater freedom. The capaign finance reform act was an exercise in restricting freedom. The various diversity requirements is an exercise in restricting freedoms. The refusal to allow personal control over social security (private invetment) is a restriction of freedom.

Now, some of these concepts can be argued to be good and worthwhile, but they are still restrictions on freedom.

newt, let's face it, these dern liberal ted kennedy followers (the ones who boo the president, basically) aren't going to listen to reason, they'll listen to sharp and to-the-point comebacks which alot of us conservatives are incapable of giving b/c we're just too darn blunt.

Where's FOL when we really need him :p.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Chojin Man
The country is divided pretty evenly between Dem. and Rep. with the largest group being the Independants. Just look at the last election it was one of the closest elections ever. I'm not sure, but didn't Gore win the popular vote? You think that just because a Republican(Bush) wins one election that the majority of the country will be conservative from now on, forever? Dream on.

Yes, Gore did win the popular vote, by about 1/2 million.

But, since 9/11 the American population has shifted right. Not enough that every American has a shotgun and is sitting on the border looking to "bag an illegal". But enough that as the democrats push further to the left they alienate more and more people. I think they're placing themselves in a real sticky situation the way they are going with their opposistion to a popular war and they're absolute slander of a popular president. Tom Daschle's obstructionism in the Senate is really noticeable and the American public does not like it. The Senate Democrats are really going out of their way to look insane. Even when they HAVE a legitimate arguement they take it so far as to invalidate their point.

For instance, on the WMD. I see three possible responses the democrats could have made to that.

1) To accuse the Bush administration of not checking their facts closely enough before going in. TO not have confirmed the locations and existance of the weapons. In short, saying that the Bush administration relied on faulty intelligence and they should have known better.

2) The accuse the administration of incompetance in finding the WMD. To basically say "look, we know they had em', you showed us pictures, so how did YOU LOSE THEM?" I think this would have been the most effective way to do it. To basically say that the administration was right to go in, but too incompetant to do it right.

3) To concoct this wild fantasy that Bush somehow KNEW that there was no WMD and lied to the entire world to avenge his dad and score political points. This of course ignores the fact that EVERYONE has been saying he had WMD for more then a decade. And it ignores that it's completely moronic to go into a country to find WMD KNOWING that there were none. This just looks the accuser look like a shrill idiot.

They really had a lot of good room to move in to slam Bush on the war, but instead they went for a meltdown.

[Butterfingers]

Originally posted by bratch
In his speech after launching preemptive strikes on Iraq the President stated...

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons"...

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces"

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors"

He then asked his guest, mainly those stating the President has lied in his reasoning, for their responses. Anyone care to guess the outcome?

If your gonna blame the president you better blame everybody else. Like the majority of congress that brought us to war, based on information given by the CIA, FBI, and the various intelegence committees. Sorry the story wasent "concocted" by GWB. He based his actions on actionable inteligence as did the members of the bipartisan congress and bipartisan senate. Beleive it or not they have thier own minds too!!!

So basicly you whole entire governent lied to you...

No so quick to call it a "lie" anymore huh?

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by Butterfingers


If your gonna blame the president you better blame everybody else. Like the majority of congress that brought us to war, based on information given by the CIA, FBI, and the various intelegence committees. Sorry the story wasent "concocted" by GWB. He based his actions on actionable inteligence as did the members of the bipartisan congress and bipartisan senate. Beleive it or not they have thier own minds too!!!

So basicly you whole entire governent lied to you...

No so quick to call it a "lie" anymore huh?

And thus even the nay-sayers like Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschal have NO room to be criticizing the President. Also, since they seem to distrust the president so much, then why didn't they oppose the war all the through even at 1441? After all 1441 gave us leeway to go to war. if saddam wasn't such a bad guy, shouldn't they have opposed it? Well, they didn't oppose it, they supported it. They were bipartisan like the rest till they realized elections were coming up in a year and a half, and that supporting the war would be basically saying "hey, vote for bush!"

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Butterfingers
So basicly you whole entire governent lied to you...


WRONG.

THE WHOLE PLANET WAS IN ON IT!!!!!!!!

Frankly, I blame France.

[bratch]

Actually if you read my post above I was trying to show an example. That speech is one from Clinton in December of 1998 nobody yelled about him lying when he made a much more direct statement than GWB.

Sean Hannity used this speech over the summer by reading it to many who were accusing the President of lying and then asked their reactions. After a few minutes of their rambling he inserted the date and speaker. It was quite comically watching/listening them back peddle.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

Frankly, I blame France.

Me too!;)

However Newt after your accusation, the French have unconditionally surrendered to the local American Embassy! They now want us to rebuild their infrastructure and employ their populace.:eek:

:p

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Frankly, I blame France.

Something, that both liberals and conservatives, can finally agree on.:p

[Chojin Man]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Yes, Gore did win the popular vote, by about 1/2 million.

But, since 9/11 the American population has shifted right. Not enough that every American has a shotgun and is sitting on the border looking to "bag an illegal". But enough that as the democrats push further to the left they alienate more and more people. I think they're placing themselves in a real sticky situation the way they are going with their opposistion to a popular war and they're absolute slander of a popular president. Tom Daschle's obstructionism in the Senate is really noticeable and the American public does not like it. The Senate Democrats are really going out of their way to look insane. Even when they HAVE a legitimate arguement they take it so far as to invalidate their point.

Ya I agree with that. Doesn't America usually shift right after it gets attacked(9/11 Pearl Harbor) or feels threatend?


Originally posted by Albinonewt


The problem is most of the places where there's still a landmine problem are places that continue to be a hot zone, where even when the wars are over they're still being fought. We don't still have landmines along the major highways in France (although that gives me an idea). We picked them up when the war was over. We don't need to sign an anti-landmine treaty because we're already resposible with them.

We might be resposeable with them, but other countries are probably not as much as we try to be. Have you seen those new mines that can be set to automaticly detonate after a certain period of time? Those are pretty neat.


Originally posted by Rooster

They obviously do not, or no one would take the time to respond. But you would have to use logic to reason that out. I have arguments that are miles long, and well reasoned, but I don't use them. Why? Because those are what fall on deaf ears. I am turning the liberal's tired old tactic on them.

I guess what I should of said is that they hear you but will never agree with you b/c you insult them. Either way(insults or logic) I guess you will never convince them of anything.

"And, as I've said before, if you don't want to hear from me, don't post liberal tripe on the boards."

Thats never going to happen;)

[Rooster]

You assume I want to convince people of something. I don't. I want to let them know that no matter how hard you work on their fool's errands, I will be working harder to make sure they never come to fruition. I don't desire to further my own agenda, I seek to destroy your agenda.

And its good to know liberals won't quit posting crap, as it gives me something to do after a long day at work.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
You assume I want to convince people of something. I don't. I want to let them know that no matter how hard you work on their fool's errands, I will be working harder to make sure they never come to fruition. I don't desire to further my own agenda, I seek to destroy your agenda.

And its good to know liberals won't quit posting crap, as it gives me something to do after a long day at work.

i can't wait til you post something reportable.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Trina
Right now my husband, Doobie, is in Iraq and could possibly face a similiar fate as this soldier...so please everyone, stop for a moment. Put yourself in that soldier's shoes for just a minute and imagine what it would be like to lose a hand...it may affect how you play paintball, or even just putting your clothes on in the morning.

Trina,

Both sides of an issue take this into account. You say "support the soldier." Let me ask you something. Is it right to send a soldier into harms way without analyzing if it is the proper course for the country? (Right now I'm not saying that it is or it isn't). Should the citizens of a country not question whether putting their soldiers into harms way was the proper thing to do once they have more information? Should soldiers themselves (who are, after all, voting citizens) not question whether or not they were deployed for reasons they believe in (and I'm talking about analyzing what the most probable reasons are and not what they are told)?

Of course EVERY citizen has this right. Almost everyone has relatives in the military and we need to think about what we consider the right reasons for deployment. For Iraq it is too late. We are there.

If we are going to unquestioningly follow the policy of a government (whether it is republican or democrat) just because it is perceived to be supporting our troops, then what is the purpose of having free speech at all? Why have elections? Why not just put our faith in the divine creator and move back to hereditary monarchy?

We all hope that Doobie and everyone else comes home safe. But a free and vigorous people must ALWAYS have internal debate or we are not truly free.

[hitech]

BTW, the original story is basically false.

Here is the real story from www.snopes.com:

Origins:
On 12 April 2003 the President and First Lady did pay a call upon injured servicemen being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center. Bush awarded ten Purple Hearts, the military's honor for those wounded in combat, and participated in ceremonies in which two injured soldiers — one from Mexico and the other from the Philippines — were naturalized as U.S. citizens. He also visited with a number of servicemen undergoing treatment in those two facilities, including Marine Sgt. Eric Alva of San Antonio and Navy Corpsman Brian Alaniz of Austin, both of whom lost their right legs in the conflict with Iraq. (Alva stepped out of a Humvee and onto a mine; Alaniz stepped on another mine while rushing to help Alva.)

Aides who accompanied the President on the tour of the two hospitals report that he distributed his thanks and pride — and a few jokes — in every room, but none of the press reports about the visit mentioned the President's praying with any of these wounded men (although that would not necessarily have been out of character for him).

According to MSG Richard Puckett of the Sergeant Major of the Army's (SMA) office, the gist of the story is true, but the detail about the President's praying with a wounded soldier is an embellishment:

For the past several months the Sergeant Major of the Army has been speaking to groups about his visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals to see soldiers injured in Afghanistan and Iraq. The story involves the SMA and a visit by the President of the United States. The SMA and the President have never visited soldiers at the hospital together. The SMA's story of President Bush's visit to one particular soldier was relayed to him by one of the Special Forces soldiers in the hospital that day.

On one visit he spoke to a young special forces soldier who lost his hand in an accident involving a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. As he was leaving, the soldier stuck his limb to the SMA and SMA Tilley gingerly shook the bandages to not injure him further. He presented him a coin and said "God Bless You."

The same soldier was visited several days later by the President, who was awarding medals to many of the wounded soldiers. The soldier stuck his limb up to the President as he was leaving, and President Bush cupped his limb with both hands and said "God Bless You." He then knelt down and kissed him on the forehead.

The story that is spreading around the internet is a well-woven embellishment of the SMA's story.

MSG Richard Puckett
Public Affairs Advisor to the Sergeant Major of the Army
Office of the Sergeant Major of the Army

[hitech]

However, it looks like the second story is true:

Claim: In 2003, President and Mrs. Bush helped hand out Christmas presents to children of inmates.

Status: True.

Origins:
So often the stories about various politicians have nothing to them, but that is not the case here. Although not a great deal of information is available, what little we've been able to discover fits the account given above.

On 22 December 2003, President and Mrs. Bush did visit the Shiloh Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, for the purpose of recognizing its "Victim to Victory Angel Tree Ministry," a program which provides Christmas gifts to more than 500,000 children of inmates each year. The Associated Press covered their visit, and Angel Tree itself issued a press statement about the visit from the First Family, saying that "The President and First Lady joined the young guests of honor in singing carols, and reading a Christmas story. They also helped hand out gifts to approximately 50 children of prisoners at the holiday event." Breakpoint also issued an account of the Presidential visit, which includes Mr. Bush's remarks to those assembled.

We can't tell from what little information is available how long President and Mrs. Bush spent with the families of inmates, which might well be the crux of things. Although Associated Press did mention this visit (but only in passing as part of a far larger article about George W. Bush attending a menorah lighting ceremony that same week), most news outlets didn't pick up and run the story. The e-mailed account was right about this story not getting circulated — we're not finding that news of it made its way into many newspapers. As to why the press would choose to pass over the story, keep in mind that Presidents and their wives reading to groups of children or visiting the needy and infirm during the holiday season isn't news in and of itself, because they all do it. It is therefore not surprising that the press would choose to expend their resources on what they deemed to be more exciting news stories than the standard festive season gladhanding. Yet if Colson's account is accurate ("They stayed long after the cameras were gone to greet every child, to have their picture taken with them, their mothers, and their grandmothers, to talk with them, and to ask questions"), this wasn't the standard 'smile for the cameras then run like heck' that has come to be expected from politicians; it was something more. (Although the press could hardly be expected to report the 'something more' part since, as described in the account quoted above, they were "ushered out" after ten minutes and therefore weren't around to witness it.)

A cynical way of looking at this Christmas visit would be to attribute the President's extra involvement to a desire to draw attention to a pet project — according to the Associated Press article, "White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the event was aimed at highlighting Bush's initiative for recruiting and training mentors for more than 1 million disadvantaged youth, including 100,000 children with parents in prison." A less cynical view would be to see it as an expression of real support and concern, an act of true charity that came from the heart.

[Zygote]

Originally posted by Rooster
You assume I want to convince people of something. I don't. I want to let them know that no matter how hard you work on their fool's errands, I will be working harder to make sure they never come to fruition. I don't desire to further my own agenda, I seek to destroy your agenda.



I can't wait to see which one of your senseless, vitriolic posts is the one to singlehandedly destroy the liberal agenda. It's good to have a high opinion of yourself but get real.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Chojin Man
We might be resposeable with them, but other countries are probably not as much as we try to be. Have you seen those new mines that can be set to automaticly detonate after a certain period of time? Those are pretty neat.


Yeah I have.

And that's basically why I don't really care about the treaty. There's two kinds of countries, responsible ones like us and Britain that will clean up their mines, and despotic psychos like Syria and North Korea that won't, no matter how many treaties they sign.

I certainly agree with the notion of reducing landmines in the world, but the treaty is meaningless.

[impostal22]

hitech..thanks for finding that!

rooster- you can get off your high horse of red scare conservatism now.
looks like questioning the validity of a story is a good idea, eh?

edit- decided to self censor myself and not bash rooster

[Rooster]

Lol, re-read my first post in this thread. I doubted the veracity of this report myself. Nearly anything sent via email has gone through the same embellishment. My original point still stands. Since when did liberals start caring about something as silly as the truth?

[-Carnifex-]

Not sure, maybe we should ask CB? :D

[AutoMaggot]

*Don't flame and don't circumvent the cuss filter*

[Zygote]

That text was taken from a christian web site. You expect them to not talk about their religion because you don't believe in it?

[Restola]

Originally posted by Zygote
You expect them to not talk about their religion because you don't believe in it?
You expect people not to state their opinions because you don't want to hear it?

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Restola

You expect people not to state their opinions because you don't want to hear it?

He never said that.

[Restola]

AutoMaggot never said he expected the site to not talk about their religion.

Pro-religion lashing-out is as annoying as anti-religion lashing out. Both sides should restrain themselves.

[Zygote]

I'm not religious. People can post whatever they want on their own sites. Don't go there if you don't like it.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by theraidenproject
Liberals care nothing about the truth when it comes to furthering their agenda.
Conservatives care nothing about the truth when it comes to futhering their agenda.
The arguments you people on both sides throw at each other apply both ways. Why can't we all agree that politicians are self-serving scumbags?

I am so sick of reading all this stupid political crap on AO. No one is going to change anyone else's mind.

so very true, but it is fun to argue :D

edit- weird how did my post end up above yours

[theraidenproject]

Liberals care nothing about the truth when it comes to furthering their agenda.
Conservatives care nothing about the truth when it comes to futhering their agenda.
The arguments you people on both sides throw at each other apply both ways. Why can't we all agree that politicians are self-serving scumbags?

I am so sick of reading all this stupid political crap on AO. No one is going to change anyone else's mind.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by theraidenproject
Liberals care nothing about the truth when it comes to furthering their agenda.
Conservatives care nothing about the truth when it comes to futhering their agenda.


some of us tend to stay away from dumb generalizations like that.

*some* (not most) of us argue the issue, not the person or his or her label.

but i agree w/ what you said...most ppl on here lack the support for their arguments or have a superiority complex so they feel they have to bash those that disagree with them. not gonna mention any names, though.

[theraidenproject]

Ok, ya got me. I shouldn't have made generalizations like that. I should have just said, "All groups tend to twist truths whenever possible to further their agendas or make them look good." And I'm not even really referring to this thread at all. Of course a kind act that Bush did will get jumped on by all the liberals, the same thing would happen if you put Clinton in there instead of Bush. Don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by theraidenproject
Ok, ya got me. I shouldn't have made generalizations like that. I should have just said, "All groups tend to twist truths whenever possible to further their agendas or make them look good." And I'm not even really referring to this thread at all. Of course a kind act that Bush did will get jumped on by all the liberals, the same thing would happen if you put Clinton in there instead of Bush. Don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

don't misinterpret what i was getting at. i wasn't attacking you, i was just agreeing with the very things you were complaining about people arguing about! everyone's poo stinks, demo's and repub's, but people have a hard time seeing past the labels.

thanks for thinking about it, though :)

[Rooster]

"Liberals care nothing about the truth when it comes to furthering their agenda.
Conservatives care nothing about the truth when it comes to futhering their agenda."

You've missed the point. This has nothing to do with the truth of a statement, it has to do with universal truths.

What is the value of a human life? Is it worth more than that of a community? Is it worth more than an beleif? Is saving the life of your friend worth killing your enemy? Is it acceptable to lie? To Whom? About what? Etc.

I am interested in universal truths. Understanding the true nature of a human being, and then basing judgement on that. Understanding what can happen based on what I know will happen. Whether or not someone lied to another person has nothing to do with understanding truth.

[member#10,261]

Originally posted by theraidenproject
the same thing would happen if you put Clinton in there instead of Bush

but Clinton would NEVER EVER EVER do such a thing

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
"Liberals care nothing about the truth when it comes to furthering their agenda.
Conservatives care nothing about the truth when it comes to futhering their agenda."

You've missed the point. This has nothing to do with the truth of a statement, it has to do with universal truths.

What is the value of a human life? Is it worth more than that of a community? Is it worth more than an beleif? Is saving the life of your friend worth killing your enemy? Is it acceptable to lie? To Whom? About what? Etc.

I am interested in universal truths. Understanding the true nature of a human being, and then basing judgement on that. Understanding what can happen based on what I know will happen. Whether or not someone lied to another person has nothing to do with understanding truth.

ya except even universal truths are subjectively defined.

[Rooster]

Of course they are, if they wern't, there would be no difference in opinion.

However recognizing a truth and accepting it as fact, makes it fact, at least in your own existance. Hitler beleived killing Jews was right. In his own reality, all jews being evil was a fact. The point of the example is that the world can be modified to mirror one person's truths.

And this is exactly why I hate liberals. I do not want the world to be altered according to what they understand to be facts. I would rahter be dead, and since I do not want to die, I will do what ever it takes to shatter the truths that I know to be false. Whether you agree or not is irrelevent, my truth is my reality. I am right and you are wrong if you disagree.

[Chojin Man]

Originally posted by Rooster
...I will do what ever it takes to shatter the truths that I know to be false. Whether you agree or not is irrelevent, my truth is my reality. I am right and you are wrong if you disagree.

LMAO

[Rooster]

Yes, the supposed facts that the liberal stakes their beleifs on are quite funny. I laugh at them often.

[Riotz]

Ugh, I stopped reading around the 30th post. Hope I don't get flamed...


Politics! Great for Bush. Should we praise him? I don't know. This is all part of the job he has been elected to do. It is the same 'job' and 'duty' that I am sure many presidents have done before him.


Instead of spending so much attention on a man who visited people at a hospital; let us spend MORE attention on the men and women who where IN the war and who are NOW in those hospitals.


Yes, he is the President of the United States and is VERY busy, I'm sure.


However...

It's part of the job.

[Thordic]

The current political problems have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, no matter how much you want to argue about it.

The current problems are due to the fact we have a glut of politicians, and no leaders. Politicians are not leaders. They serve no one but themselves and their interests, no matter which side they are on.

Leaders are cast aside by both parties because no one wants to see someone who gives neither side an advantage. John McCain has what it takes to be a leader, and look where it got him.

You can argue politics all you want, but its all meaningless. Republican or democrat, doesn't matter, as long as we have politicians running things, nothing will change.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Thordic
The current political problems have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, no matter how much you want to argue about it.

The current problems are due to the fact we have a glut of politicians, and no leaders. Politicians are not leaders. They serve no one but themselves and their interests, no matter which side they are on.

Leaders are cast aside by both parties because no one wants to see someone who gives neither side an advantage. John McCain has what it takes to be a leader, and look where it got him.

You can argue politics all you want, but its all meaningless. Republican or democrat, doesn't matter, as long as we have politicians running things, nothing will change.

I agree with Thordic...

There was something about McCain that I could respect. Yet as flawed as our system is....it is still better than all those others out there. :)

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Thordic
The current political problems have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, no matter how much you want to argue about it.

The current problems are due to the fact we have a glut of politicians, and no leaders. Politicians are not leaders. They serve no one but themselves and their interests, no matter which side they are on.

Leaders are cast aside by both parties because no one wants to see someone who gives neither side an advantage. John McCain has what it takes to be a leader, and look where it got him.

You can argue politics all you want, but its all meaningless. Republican or democrat, doesn't matter, as long as we have politicians running things, nothing will change.

thordic, you're missing the fact that we aren't arguing democrat vs. republican. anyone with any knowledge of politics knows there is NO difference between the two parties because of centralism. what we argue, however, is the ideas behind liberal thought vs. the ideas behind conservative thought. most of the time it isn't even about immediate policy or law, but rather hypotheticals or just ideas being tossed around.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by impostal22


thordic, you're missing the fact that we aren't arguing democrat vs. republican. anyone with any knowledge of politics knows there is NO difference between the two parties because of centralism. what we argue, however, is the ideas behind liberal thought vs. the ideas behind conservative thought. most of the time it isn't even about immediate policy or law, but rather hypotheticals or just ideas being tossed around.

Gee thats funny cause I thought we were discussing what President Bush did and that it was cool of him to do so....

;)

[cphilip]

Originally posted by cphilip


Gee thats funny cause I thought we were discussing what President Bush did and that it was cool of him to do so....

;)

[impostal22]

sorry bout that phil- my network here at college is ridiculously unstable so somehow that got submitted twice about an hour apart from eachother lol. i really hate the internet here.

and about what i said - i was referring more to other political discussions on AO that you mods have graciously allowed to go on. i've been meaning to thank you for allowing it, because i know you don't have to.

[cphilip]

Hehehehehe... I was just messin with ya. Its happened to me the last couple days too. I think its got something to do with the mess ups on the board too. But no one let me even get away with it without smart arsin me over it so I couldn't let you either! :D

[impostal22]

Originally posted by cphilip
Hehehehehe... I was just messin with ya. Its happened to me the last couple days too. I think its got something to do with the mess ups on the board too. But no one let me even get away with it without smart arsin me over it so I couldn't let you either! :D

lol dont you worry, next time you do it, consider yourself harassed:p

when will AO be back to normal performance? my addiction is being hindered by these horridly slow load times!!!:(

[cphilip]

I got no idea. No one ever tells me anything. I am not certain its at Delaware or if its this Virus going around thats cloggin things all over or the icy weather causing some of it. Might be some of all of that. My load times are not too bad most times but seems like when I post the reply takes forever to go. And then sometimes it acts like it times out and does not send. Then I resend and find it sent after all.

I wish I could tell ya what it is but I just do not know

Harrase away! I don't mind at all. :)