I have read the two articles by AP and NYT. I do not have a copy of the classified report[/B]. The [B]reports in the NYT and AP are accurate and Bush has not refuted them.

Only someone like you, an obsessive Bush hater, can make sense of that statement.

The NYT Articles quotes sections from the report that was released by officials WHO HAVE READ THE REPORT.

The reality that you and the other Bush supporters will not accept is that Bush and Cheney IGNORE ANYTHING that shows what they are doing are wrong.

I don't ignore it, I gladly accept it. Because if ignoring people like you make them wrong, then go ahead. The NYT is known to be very anti-Bush/anti-American, so I will take anything they report as likely as I take the bs you post.

You take excerpts from the NYT's and proclaim that you know EVERYTHING the report said. That is typical for people like you.

You are not ignoring me you are ignoring sources like the AP and NYT. The past has shown that the stories they report have been shown to be accurate

I can't stop laughing. How many times has the NYT had to retract stories? How many times have they published classified information? I once again show what a hypocrit you are so you attack me. You HAVE NOT SEEN THE INTELLIGENCE REPORTS, SO STOP CLAIMING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IT SAYS.

You are surely like Bush and Cheney that are nothing but liars. As I have said, I have set out what I believe in my Book. I am more then willing to let time prove me either correct or incorrect.

Col, you have made up more lies about Bush than anybody. Your book doesn't sell because of your lies and bs just like your posts here. Don't you get that?

Bush will go down in history as the WORST President this country has had to date!

I doubt that. Jimmy Carter will hold that title for a while longer.

I will bet you can not show where anything I included in my book is not true. Just TRY!

If your book is anything like your posts here I would not buy it. Myself and others here have shown you REPEATEDLY how you are either posting false information, or making claims against Bush which are not true. From what I have seen about your book it's nothing but a collection of anti-Bush quotes from other Bush haters. Do you ever wonder why nobody buys it col? Seriously.

We have rebutted most of your ridiculous theories about Bush. You blame Bush for everything no matter how foolish it sounds. We have debunked most of your bs time after time and you contine to post the same articles over and over. We have proved you wrong on countless occassions and I have showed where you either ignore the posts or start a new one to avoid having to admit being wrong.

Reading one of your posts today is no different than the one you will post next week. It's all bs. You have made yourself look incredibly ignorant just in this post alone. You haven't read the intelligence report, but you act like some authority on it because the NYT tells you "Bush" did it.

If people like you were in charge back many years ago we would all be speaking another language. I bet you would be claiming the President was responsible for Pearl Harbor, and attacking the Germans would cause more people to become Nazis.

You have a serious obsession with a man, and you need professional help for it. Not even the liberals come to your defense in these pathetic posts you make about Bush.

As I said the fact we have NOT been attacked in the U.S. has NOTHING to do with Iraq.

But it has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the bacteria who are dying in Iraq aren't carrying out terrorist attacks anymore, right?

The war in Iraq isn't anything new. It didn't start in 2003, it started in 1990. There was never a surrender signed, or an official end to the war declared. What there was (you ignorant bit of foul feces) was a "ceasefire agreement" made between Iraq and the US.

Since Iraq refused to live up to their part of it, Prs. Bush saw fit to quit making the US out to be a paper tiger and ENFORCE the terms of the ceasefire.

One of (but not the only) benefits to this action is terrorists are dying in record numbers in Iraq. The fact you can't see that is proof that maybe a skilled surgeon needs to install a window in your belly. That way you can still see out while your head is so far up your butt.

Of course, you cry for your bacteria buddies and can't wait to be one of the virgins promised them in the life to come.

Parated2K

The terrorists that would attack the United States have increased which makes the danger greater. The National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that The Iraq war has helped increase the terrorists and thus made us LESS SAFE not More safe. The most recent plan to attack 10 airliners headed to the U.S. and the attacks in England clearly show that the terrorists continue their plans. It was a long time between the first attack on the Twin Towers and 9/11.

We have converted an evil dictatorship to an elected government that embraces the same political party as Iran. We have unleashed sectarian violence that was under control prior to our invading Iraq. We have enabled Al Qaeda to begin operating in Iraq where they DID NOT operate prior to our invasion. We have not finished the action in Afghanistan and the situation is getting worse by the day. We have a President that ignores the collective advice from our 16 intelligence about the impact of the Iraq war on our security. We have a president that has overused the Active military to the point where only the use OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES CAN SUSTAIN THE DEPLOYMENTS. WE HAVE a president THAT IGNORES THE NEEDS TO REPLACE THE EQUIPOMENT THAT HAS BEEN DESTROYED IN IRAQ. We have a Commander-in-Chief that is a TOTAL FAILURE!

I used to support Iraq. Now, I'm sick and tired of it.

Awww, is it taking longer than 30 minutes (with time out for station identification.

The terrorists that would attack the United States have increased which makes the danger greater. The National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that The Iraq war has helped increase the terrorists and thus made us LESS SAFE not More safe.

With that kind of logic, Elliot Ness should have left the Mafia alone, since they only got more dangerous after he went after them.... Also, that kind of logic made the Gang problem in US neighborhoods worse, since people feared what would happen if they actually fought back.

It is your kind of cowardous that empowers criminals everywhere.. "Give them what they want, so they don't get more violent. Guess what 50 years of that attitude got us? More gangs, and more murders. All it did was tell the criminal that he can rape our women and all we'll do is sit and whine about it. 30 years of your kind of wimpy reactions has done the same for terrorists.

I pity any troop that had to suffer your kind of lack of leadership you waste of a pension.

We have unleashed sectarian violence that was under control prior to our invading Iraq.

Oh yeah, the rapes, murders, tortures and the like were non existant in the Land of Iraq. Uday and Qusay were just fun loving fans of the Iraq Soccer team and no Iraq Air Defense Artillery battery ever shot at our jets. Hussein was willingly feeding his people and never made them starve so he could build a palace.

Course, you would have been there with him, watching the rapes while eating popcorn and cheering them along if you had the chance. Especially if your daughter was the victim.

We have not finished the action in Afghanistan and the situation is getting worse by the day.

Name one time when the Commander of Ops in Afghanistan was denied troops or assets because the Commander of Ops in Iraq said he needed them more! YOu are a lying sack of crap it you say that Iraq has interfered at all (logistically or Manpower). You are a liar because you do know that it has never happened, yet you sit in your filthy diaper and whine about it.

THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES CAN SUSTAIN THE DEPLOYMENTS. WE HAVE a president THAT IGNORES THE NEEDS TO REPLACE THE EQUIPOMENT THAT HAS BEEN DESTROYED IN IRAQ. We have a Commander-in-Chief that is a TOTAL FAILURE!

FOOL!!! and who is the president that created a military where 50% of our infantry and 75% of our artillery were National Guard and Reserve? YOur butt buddy Clinton, that's who! For the sake of the (lie) Ballance Federal Budget, he moved troops (including myself) from active duty to reserve components... You know this, you are willing to lie about it. You, sir, should be stripped of your pension, your rank and entitlements for your total lack of honor. Ever see "branded"? That should be YOU!

Now, go back to your pig wallow where you are appreciated.

Parated2k

You are the FOOL. The structure of the Guard and Reserve has always had the combat support and combat service support concentrated in the Guard and Reserve forces. That did not start under Clinton.


I know this by 25 years service in the Army Reserve 1968-1993. The issue is that the Active Military is FAR TOO SMALL for the level of deployments. For every 100,000 troops deployed you have 100,000 recovering and another 100,000 preparing to deploy. Thus the number of forces linked to a combat operation is about 3 times the number in country. Bush in the 2000 campaign acknowledged the active military was TOO SMALL and that was BEFORE the Iraq War. What did Bush do to fix the problem he acknowledged-- NOTHING!


This is from my book about what Bush said concerning the size of the Active military and nation building:

"National Defense

During the campaign of 2000, Bush seemed to understand we had overused the so-called peace dividend and that our military, especially the Army, was too small. Bush also campaigned on a belief that the United States should limit its actions in nation building. It is hard to know whether Mr. Bush recognized the shortcomings in our security services that suffered from a lack of human resources and collaboration among the various agencies. Clearly the events of 9/11 documented in spades that we were vulnerable to attack and our intelligence network was inadequate."

"At the same time the Bush White House was planning the Iraq adventure, the Secretary of Defense set aside the issue of expanding our military strength. Instead Secretary Rumsfeld began his campaign to restructure the Department of Defense. It is true that the nature of the threat facing the United States has significantly changed since the end of the Cold War. Restructuring the military, to better align itself with the new threat, is a legitimate undertaking. However, restructuring alone does not deal with the adequacy of the active component to accomplish its mission. During the Cold War the United States faced an enemy of immense power that was relatively predictable. Today we face a combination of rogue states and international terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda that have the capability of employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, the real danger comes from the militant Islamists as Michael Scheuer points out is his book, Imperial Hubris."

You know Gene, I've been reading your little rants off and on for a year and a half now. So far not one of your anti US doomsday scenarios have come true. So just go climb into a hole somewhere and shut your festering face.

Yeah, what happened to that draft he predicted?

MasonM

The section that clearly states that the Iraq war has made the terrorist danger greater is exactly what I said and what was reported in the NYT and AP. I have been proven correct and Bush is still running around telling us we are safer when his own Intelligence agency says just the opposite.