51 dead in september. 55 so far this month. 8 of the 55 just today in one attack.....

[Care4all]

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Note to those like Jay the retarded Canadian... Bush wasn't in office in 1998.

sure.

and they RUSHED IN TO WAR against him because of it....


NOT!

guess you don't know what carrying the big stick, but not ever using it meant....

NO ONE started a full fledged war in Iraq under Clinton.....

the republicans RIDICULED the democrats complaing about saddam at the time....saying clinton was wagging the dog...to avoid the monica scandal....

True!

The dems voted to "RUSH IN TO WAR" IN '03" by overwhelming vote.

Clinton himself even supported going in. Funny how you libs never want to mention that lil' FACT!

you know, i believe the democrats in the senate did not cast their votes for the iraq resolution correctly, but in the house of representatives, who is our representation, the ''people's'' representation, the majority of democratic congressmen voted AGAINST the iraq resolution....for some strange reason, those on the right side of the aisle NEGLECT to mention such....i wonder why?

it wasn't a vote to go to war either....

it was a vote to give this decision to go to war or to not go to war, to our President....which imho, was unconstitutional, from the get go!

 

[bodecea]

Sadaam could have prevented it all. All he had to do was come clean once and for all.

Sadaam brought WAR to his doorstep. He alone is solely responsible. DEAL WITH IT!

He continually rattled his sabre. Instead of having a few mis-guided cruise missiles fired by Clinton, Bush took that sabre and shoved it firmly up his ass once and for all.

No more proof is necessary. The proof is in Sadaams own words:

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Of course you libs will ignore it, because the truth hurts you people big time.

Let me ask you....why should a sovereign nation have to "come clean" to another sovereign nation? Are you in support of the U.S. 'coming clean' about our weapon capabilities if the Russians demand it?

Or is it only US who gets to make such demands of nations...that...did...not...attack...us...on...9/11?

 

[Si modo]

Yet, BHO sits with his thumb up his ass doing NOTHING whenever over eight weeks ago McChrystal told him what the military in Afghanistan needs and that time is critical.

Nothing.

Eight weeks.

Time is critical.

October is the deadliest month on record for US troops since the start of the war.






Nero does NOTHING.

 

[bodecea]

sure.

and they RUSHED IN TO WAR against him because of it....


NOT!

guess you don't know what carrying the big stick, but not ever using it meant....

NO ONE started a full fledged war in Iraq under Clinton.....

the republicans RIDICULED the democrats complaing about saddam at the time....saying clinton was wagging the dog...to avoid the monica scandal....

True!

The dems voted to "RUSH IN TO WAR" IN '03" by overwhelming vote.

Clinton himself even supported going in. Funny how you libs never want to mention that lil' FACT!

you know, i believe the democrats in the senate did not cast their votes for the iraq resolution correctly, but in the house of representatives, who is our representation, the ''people's'' representation, the majority of democratic congressmen voted AGAINST the iraq resolution....for some strange reason, those on the right side of the aisle NEGLECT to mention such....i wonder why?

it wasn't a vote to go to war either....

it was a vote to give this decision to go to war or to not go to war, to our President....which imho, was unconstitutional, from the get go!

Thank you for clarifying....I'm multi-tasking today and didn't have time to go get the figures.


And...correct me if I'm wrong, but weeks before the invasion, didn't the Iraqiis send a complete report on their weapon capabilities to us? And weren't the U.N. weapon inspectors telling us that Saddam had no WMDs?

 

[bodecea]

Yet, BHO sits with his thumb up his ass doing NOTHING whenever over eight weeks ago McChrystal told him what the military in Afghanistan needs and that time is critical.

Nothing.

Eight weeks.

Time is critical.

October is the deadliest month on record for US troops since the start of the war.






Nero does NOTHING.

How do you know that they aren't weighing all options and considering the next move VERY CAREFULLY?


Oh, I know....you want Obama to rush without thinking. Not everyone things that is a good idea, you know.

But...tell us what you would do in Afghanistan.....ready? GO!

 

[Care4all]

i personally believe Congress should make this decision on war in afghanistan....it is not the president's decision to make....

it should be a Vote to go to WAR, and it should take debate, and 2/3's of both arms of congress voting yes, for us to send our men and women to DIE for us via war....anything less, imho, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[Si modo]

Yet, BHO sits with his thumb up his ass doing NOTHING whenever over eight weeks ago McChrystal told him what the military in Afghanistan needs and that time is critical.

Nothing.

Eight weeks.

Time is critical.

October is the deadliest month on record for US troops since the start of the war.






Nero does NOTHING.

How do you know that they aren't weighing all options and considering the next move VERY CAREFULLY?


Oh, I know....you want Obama to rush without thinking. Not everyone things that is a good idea, you know.

But...tell us what you would do in Afghanistan.....ready? GO!

The supported facts are exactly as I reported them.

If you want still to hang your hat on hope, go for it.

Meanwhile, the facts are that a 'commander' is taking over eight weeks to make a decision about war while the deadliest month ever has just been recorded.

 

[Si modo]

i personally believe Congress should make this decision on war in afghanistan....it is not the president's decision to make.

it should be a note to go to WAR, and it should take debate, and 2/3's of both arms of congress voting yes, for us to send our men and women to DIE for us via war....anything less, imho, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But in the system of the USA, the President is the Commander in Chief. It's a constitutional thing.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Sadaam could have prevented it all. All he had to do was come clean once and for all.

Sadaam brought WAR to his doorstep. He alone is solely responsible. DEAL WITH IT!

He continually rattled his sabre. Instead of having a few mis-guided cruise missiles fired by Clinton, Bush took that sabre and shoved it firmly up his ass once and for all.

No more proof is necessary. The proof is in Sadaams own words:

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Of course you libs will ignore it, because the truth hurts you people big time.

Let me ask you....why should a sovereign nation have to "come clean" to another sovereign nation? Are you in support of the U.S. 'coming clean' about our weapon capabilities if the Russians demand it?

Or is it only US who gets to make such demands of nations...that...did...not...attack...us...on...9/11?

Yeah, a "sovereign" nation who invaded our allie. A "sovereign" nation who agreed to do away with WMD'S, yet continually thwarted the efforts of inspectors to confirm. A "sovereign" nation who continually threw the inspectors out of the country. A "sovereign" nation who used WMD'S on their own citizens. A sovereign nation who repeatedly fired on our aircraft in AGREED UPON no-fly zones. A "sovereign" nation who filled mass graves of citizens who dared to dissent. A "sovereign" nation whos leader put on a charade. A "sovereign" nation who's leader repeatedly refused to deny a relationship with Al-qaeda. A "sovereign" nation who could have come clean once and for all. A "sovereign" nation whos insane leader decided to play games and continually rattle his sword.

WTFU!

 

[Care4all]

i personally believe Congress should make this decision on war in afghanistan....it is not the president's decision to make.

it should be a note to go to WAR, and it should take debate, and 2/3's of both arms of congress voting yes, for us to send our men and women to DIE for us via war....anything less, imho, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But in the system of the USA, the President is the Commander in Chief. It's a constitutional thing.

in our constitution, he is commander in chief in WAR, but the WAR MUST BE DECLARED BY CONGRESS with 2/3's vote of YEA or greater.... anything less than 2/3's yes vote of both houses of congress, THERE IS NO WAR for the President to Command.

 

[Si modo]

i personally believe Congress should make this decision on war in afghanistan....it is not the president's decision to make.

it should be a note to go to WAR, and it should take debate, and 2/3's of both arms of congress voting yes, for us to send our men and women to DIE for us via war....anything less, imho, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But in the system of the USA, the President is the Commander in Chief. It's a constitutional thing.

in our constitution, he is commander in chief in WAR, but the WAR MUST BE DECLARED BY CONGRESS with 2/3's vote of YEA or greater.... anything less than 2/3's yes vote of both houses of congress, THERE IS NO WAR for the President to Command.

Ummm, Afghanistan is war. The dead and the families of the dead don't give a shit about semantics. They want their loved ones home or with the help they need.

 

[Care4all]

True!

The dems voted to "RUSH IN TO WAR" IN '03" by overwhelming vote.

Clinton himself even supported going in. Funny how you libs never want to mention that lil' FACT!

you know, i believe the democrats in the senate did not cast their votes for the iraq resolution correctly, but in the house of representatives, who is our representation, the ''people's'' representation, the majority of democratic congressmen voted AGAINST the iraq resolution....for some strange reason, those on the right side of the aisle NEGLECT to mention such....i wonder why?

it wasn't a vote to go to war either....

it was a vote to give this decision to go to war or to not go to war, to our President....which imho, was unconstitutional, from the get go!

Thank you for clarifying....I'm multi-tasking today and didn't have time to go get the figures.


And...correct me if I'm wrong, but weeks before the invasion, didn't the Iraqiis send a complete report on their weapon capabilities to us? And weren't the U.N. weapon inspectors telling us that Saddam had no WMDs?

you are correct, saddam was cooperating and the inspectors were finding nothing of significance....the inspectors begged for a little more time for a complete thorough search to reconfirm their stance that saddam did not have any viable wmd's but president bush pulled them out hastily and attacked iraq a few weeks earlier, than what he was planning, supposedly so not to risk the opportunity of killing saddam's sons that we got wind of...

if memory serves....

 

[namvet]

that's what ya get for electing these shit eatin' dawg democraps. their to busy writing tax bills to worry about this

 

[bodecea]

Yet, BHO sits with his thumb up his ass doing NOTHING whenever over eight weeks ago McChrystal told him what the military in Afghanistan needs and that time is critical.

Nothing.

Eight weeks.

Time is critical.

October is the deadliest month on record for US troops since the start of the war.






Nero does NOTHING.

How do you know that they aren't weighing all options and considering the next move VERY CAREFULLY?


Oh, I know....you want Obama to rush without thinking. Not everyone things that is a good idea, you know.

But...tell us what you would do in Afghanistan.....ready? GO!

The supported facts are exactly as I reported them.

If you want still to hang your hat on hope, go for it.

Meanwhile, the facts are that a 'commander' is taking over eight weeks to make a decision about war while the deadliest month ever has just been recorded.

Supported facts? Supported? By WHAT? Bring it, girl.


And as for the Deadliest month....tell us what a new plan would have done about a helo mid-air and IED attacks on convoys (something we've had to deal with since day one)

I want to hear YOUR solutions....Now! Quickly! Go!

 

[bodecea]

i personally believe Congress should make this decision on war in afghanistan....it is not the president's decision to make.

it should be a note to go to WAR, and it should take debate, and 2/3's of both arms of congress voting yes, for us to send our men and women to DIE for us via war....anything less, imho, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But in the system of the USA, the President is the Commander in Chief. It's a constitutional thing.

The President is CinC, he conducts the war, Congress declares war. May I suggest a wonderful document on this:

LII: Constitution

 

[Care4all]

But in the system of the USA, the President is the Commander in Chief. It's a constitutional thing.

in our constitution, he is commander in chief in WAR, but the WAR MUST BE DECLARED BY CONGRESS with 2/3's vote of YEA or greater.... anything less than 2/3's yes vote of both houses of congress, THERE IS NO WAR for the President to Command.

Ummm, Afghanistan is war. The dead and the families of the dead don't give a shit about semantics. They want their loved ones home or with the help they need.

then i would suggest, that we follow our constitution for a change, and force congress to DECLARE WAR in afghanistan.... if they declare war and get 2/3's of congress/senate voting yes for the war....then it will be supported and funded till the cows come home....

IF congress does not get the 2/3's voting yes for warring in afghanistan, then the troops come home....no funding for war.

very simple, and precisely how our founding fathers prescribed it to be in our constitution.... it is up to ''we the people'' through representation to decide to send our children to die in a war....

then it is up to the president to command this war, through his military commanders, through his cia, through his foreign relations depts, through the intelligence and security areas and state dept, defense dept etc....he is commander of all, regarding the war....

congress is still his overseer, and they can cut or increase the presidents funds to run the war... the president can veto bills he feels are insufficient....the congress can override those vetos with 2/3rds vote.... it is still a shared responsibility basically...

that's my understanding of it all....

care

 

[Si modo]

How do you know that they aren't weighing all options and considering the next move VERY CAREFULLY?


Oh, I know....you want Obama to rush without thinking. Not everyone things that is a good idea, you know.

But...tell us what you would do in Afghanistan.....ready? GO!

The supported facts are exactly as I reported them.

If you want still to hang your hat on hope, go for it.

Meanwhile, the facts are that a 'commander' is taking over eight weeks to make a decision about war while the deadliest month ever has just been recorded.

Supported facts? Supported? By WHAT? Bring it, girl. ....

Some just can't be bothered with reading the papers. So, for the lazy, read the recommendations from McChrystal which BHO has had since Labor Day (and to hold the hand of the intellectually lazy, that was over eight weeks ago). October occurred during that time period.

How very intellectually lazy you are.

 

[Wicked Jester]

How do you know that they aren't weighing all options and considering the next move VERY CAREFULLY?


Oh, I know....you want Obama to rush without thinking. Not everyone things that is a good idea, you know.

But...tell us what you would do in Afghanistan.....ready? GO!

The supported facts are exactly as I reported them.

If you want still to hang your hat on hope, go for it.

Meanwhile, the facts are that a 'commander' is taking over eight weeks to make a decision about war while the deadliest month ever has just been recorded.

Supported facts? Supported? By WHAT? Bring it, girl.


And as for the Deadliest month....tell us what a new plan would have done about a helo mid-air and IED attacks on convoys (something we've had to deal with since day one)

I want to hear YOUR solutions....Now! Quickly! Go!

"Helo mid-airs" are an unfortunate part of war. THEY ARE ACCIDENTS, and make up a very small number of those killed. YOU should know this.

Now, how about you come up with the numbers killed by those mid-airs, as opposed to the number killed by IED'S, ambush, sniper, and combat.

Fact is, those troops need back up, RIGHT NOW!

 

[Si modo]

i personally believe Congress should make this decision on war in afghanistan....it is not the president's decision to make.

it should be a note to go to WAR, and it should take debate, and 2/3's of both arms of congress voting yes, for us to send our men and women to DIE for us via war....anything less, imho, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But in the system of the USA, the President is the Commander in Chief. It's a constitutional thing.

The President is CinC, he conducts the war, Congress declares war. May I suggest a wonderful document on this:

LII: Constitution

You pointless, pathetic moron. Your own source includes Article II - the President is Commander in Chief.

 

[bodecea]

that's what ya get for electing these shit eatin' dawg democraps. their to busy writing tax bills to worry about this

Maybe you can call for their assassination too.