I'm lovin that picture!!! And Tom I just wanted to reply to one thing you said. You said you're getting a lot of info from people who are and were in the middle east, and they are getting lied to constantly you say. I dunno if you knew, but I was there for OIF from February until June. Anyway, of course the people who are over there and stuck in that shit hole right now are upset. Wouldn't you be? I'm sure if I got stuck over there for a year, I'd be pretty pissed and prolly have a small grudge towards Bush, or anyone high up in command, about that. Hell I was pissed and was only there 3 1/2 months. Then it doesn't help when people start rumors that you're going home. You get excited, just to be let down because it was all a rumor. Then all the letters you write home now, you talk about how they said you were supposed to go home but they cancelled it and you're all pissed off at everyone who does have the power to send you home, and you feel you have no purpose there anymore so why can't you go home. It happened to all of us in my unit. Once the word got put out we were gunna go home, everyone was excited. Then our date kept getting pushed back, and we all were pissed. So anyone we communicated with at home just heard about how they lied to us and we're stuck here and we're not doing anything so we might as well go home, but they all got it out for us and aren't letting us leave. Well now that I am home, it's easy to look back and see it wasn't their fault. We all just wanted to get the hell outta there and never come back, and we were all tired and pissed off and sick of living with each other. Troops overseas aren't always the best people to get info from even though they are over there. Just maybe a lil food for thought in case these people you talk to overseas are filling your mailbox full of these same types of messages. I'm not gunna argue my views though, I'm one shitty arguer. I just think Bush played his hand pretty well for the cards he was delt.

Bush.

OK sorry gotta add couple more things. First off we didn't kill their crazy leader. Shit I'm not 100% sure, but didn't we give them back custody of him? Also ya we did have influence on what type of government they will have. We helped them to create it, so that'd prolly be a good reason we had a little influence on what kind they would have. And this form of government sure seems to work I'd say. But we just helped them create a platform to build off of. They now have control and can mold the government to fit their society better. We just helped them create a platform to build off. Also to the guy saying what right do we have in other countries like Japan. Well for one, we will always have a huge presence in Japan. Why? Well because after WW2 they signed a contract saying they will no longer have a military and that the US will protect them from domestic enemies. So that's our business in Japan. As for the other countries. We aren't forcing them to let us have bases in there. We become allies, and they allow us to. They can kick us out whenever they want. And one last thing about how someone said something about going to war without the UN's approval. You think this is the first war we've fought without their approval?

why are you all dumb, vote for who you want and just shut the fuck up for christs sakes. dont you understand a persons views are a persons views and are not going to be changed.

Even if you win an argument on the internet your still retarded.

"There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, realize the following .. "

I just have a little to say about this... That point right there totally proved my point. That comment was supposed to help bush??? That just hurt him. Why is he letting our troops die over there, when he should be putting the effort into saving our streets, getting rid of poverty and helping AMERICANS.
The president says with his reform agenda 'we've turned the corner.' But we've lost over a million jobs, health care costs are up 40 percent and the deficit's out of control. That's not turning the corner. America can do better, and that starts with electing a new president with new policies. its the truth, and you cant deny it, we are in for some huge trouble money wise people, this war was way over budget and when this bill comes we how are we supposed to afford this?!?!? Im scared for our future because of bush.

Me612: please hit the enter key once in a while buddy.

and to everyone, im sorry i was getting a little pissy, i was really fucking pissed earlier. absolutly livid. but then i watched the new chris rock movie and he put things in perspective for me. he said "I hate anyone that makes a decision before the question is even at hand. Fuck republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, america needs to wait for the facts and get all the facts then make a fucking decision." it went something like that but you get the point.
Tom

Is it a coincidence that the Bush-haters in this thread can't spell or use proper sentence structure, grammar, etc? I think not.

Kerry likes to point out stuff like the fact Bush didn't run out of the room full of children when first told about the events of 9/11. Seems to me he doesn't really have much to say at all, except for some empty promises of what he'd do as President. It's nice to have someone that's already done good for this country, instead of some dreamer that changes his views every three months or so.

I heard Bin Laden is voting for Kerry. He's the right man for the job. :bs:

I will use enter more often, thank you for pointing that out! And I agree about the whole jobs and healthcare stuff. That's why I said I think we could use another president who will focus more in on the US, and less on the entire world. But I just don't get a good vibe from Kerry. So I'm still undecided who I'm voting for. I just wanted to say that I thought Bush did an alright job.

Actually, Bush almost won MN last election. [/b][/quote]
exactly.

I havent really researched this but ive been reading around on CNN, is there surposed to be a draft in 2005 if Bush is still in office? theres 140,000 Troops in Iraq monitoring 25 million Iraqis and 5 soldiers for every 1000 Iraq civilians.

Michael Moore seems to like that fact as well.Certainly one of the most ridiculous things they could use as ammo against Bush.

Nope, just more BS from the media.

http://www.sss.gov/

If you had watched his speech at the democratic convention you would have known that he does have things to say. That sealed my vote totally. i was moved.

and i hear bush struck a deal with saddam, that he would turn him over to his own people if he voted bush. Bush likes saddam, i hear saddam helped rig the 2000 election.

"Why do most Vietnam Vets say NO to John Kerry?

§ Yes, Kerry served in Vietnam, but do you know how he gave aid and comfort to the enemy when he returned to the US?

1. Kerry joined the radical left of the anti-war movement and worked with Jane Fonda. Many good people opposed the war, but these radicals were advocates of our enemy.

2. Kerry launched his political career with false testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 saying American soldiers in Vietnam were “. . . a generation of monsters. . . “ who raped, tortured, murdered and ravaged the countryside like Genghis Kahn. It was an outrageous lie.

3. Kerry said he was ashamed of his Vietnam service. He dishonored his decorations by throwing them over a fence labeled “Trash” on camera at a Washington, DC protest. He now says he is proud of his
service and his decorations.

4. Kerry met with our enemy’s negotiator in Paris in 1970, Madam Nguyen Thi Binh, in violation of US law while hostilities were ongoing and while the US Secretary of State was attempting to open negotiations. Kerry returned to the US and publicly advocated the enemy’s proposal of unilateral US withdrawal before negotiating the return of our POWs, contrary to the US govt’s position.

5. American POWs heard Kerry’s 1971 false testimony quoted to them during interrogation sessions as their captors pressured them to confess to war crimes they did not commit.

6. Kerry is prominently represented in Communist Vietnam’s war museum in gratitude for his help in their victory over the US.

7. In June 2004, the official Communist newspaper accused the US of a pattern of inhumane war crimes, citing the 1971 testimony of John Kerry and the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal: “ . . like in any of the dozens of countries they invaded, it was the Americans who perpetrated well-documented atrocities in Vietnam, both at the individual and mass levels." Their article shows a photo of our POWs playing
volleyball and claim they were treated well. The opposite is the truth.

8. 20 of the 22 Naval officers who served with Kerry consider him unfit for office.

§ So - John Kerry betrayed the men and women who fought in Vietnam long ago.What does it matter to young voters today?

1. Kerry is rated the most liberal out of all 100 US Senators by the nonpartisan National Journal. He is further left than Ted Kennedy, yet Kerry claims to have conservative values to get your vote.

2. Kerry says he is strong on defense. Yet Kerry has voted against most military pay raises, voted against new housing for our troops and their families, and as far back as 1994 Kerry voted to practically "gut" defense and spending for intelligence. Kerry voted against the B-1 Bomber, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landing Jet Fighter, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Patriot Missile, the Aegis Air Defense Cruiser, the Trident Missile System for U.S. Submarines, the M-1 Abrams Tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. Fortunately others voted yes and these weapon systems are now crucial to the superior edge of our armed forces.

3. Year after year, decade after decade, John Kerry has proven he will say and do anything to buy your vote.


§ Do you believe or trust John Kerry? We do not. See www.kerrylied.com"

?????

They hooked ya with the Send Me slogan eh? I never said i didn't watch it.

Bush is going to be President for another term!

The only people on this forum giving facts are the republicans. What else is new. I vote for Bush.

wow, jason you are biased person. so therefore your comment has been stricken from the record.

lightning, "I heard Bin Laden is voting for Kerry. He's the right man for the job. " that was my reply to the comment above

Arent you supposed to be in vegas? Go get some facts before you open your mouth.

Kerry is a pussy. He heard that if you get 3 purple hearts that you get sent home from the war. So he gets 3 purple hearts in 4 1/2 months?? 2 from self inflicted injuries? I won't vote for a pussy like that. Be a fucking man and stand up for your countries beliefs.

Tom, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm glad you've expressed it, but don't be suprised when people shit all over you when you are talking about hard core partisan politics. Especially on DSMStyle.

I don't think Bush is a great president, and I don't think Kerry deserves it either. But arguing stuff from a crappy Moore movie isn't going to help you win the hearts of the villagers.

But good for you for sticking your neck out there.



I think it's good we're chatting here, but it's getting a little more personal than I think it should. Name calling and stuff is probably not the best or most mature way to get your point across.



God Bless America
(whom ever you call God)


-Kiel

and wow LightningGSX you can copy and paste, thats great. i can do that too.
I would paste the entire report but that would be bad for the 56kers
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

From http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/200.../07/07_400.html :
What the 9-11 Commission Report does not explain is why, on the morning of September 11, 2001, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and other top officials were essentially missing in action.

“Who’s our quarterback” in case of a future terrorist attack? “Who’s in charge?” That was the core question members of the 9-11 commission put to every government official they interviewed. “The reason that you’re hearing such a tone of urgency in our voices is because the answer to the question was almost uniform,” said commissioner Jamie Gorelick at the press conference following today’s release of the 600 page final 9-11 Commission Report. The person in charge, she said the commissioners had been told over and over again, would be the president.

“It is an impossible situation for that to remain the case,” Gorelick observed. Impossible, because the commission’s report clearly shows that on the morning of September 11, 2001, the president and the other top officials in charge of the systems to defend the country from attack were, in essence, missing in action: They did not communicate, did not coordinate a response to the catastrophe, and in some cases did not even get involved in discussions about the attacks until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.

Yet, even though the commission’s report paints a stark portrait of opportunities lost in defending against terrorism, many observers—especially the families of some 9/11 victims, who pushed hard for the commission’s creation—were disappointed in its failure to provide a timeline of the actions of the nation’s top leaders that morning. Such an analysis, they believe, would have shown conclusively that blame for failing to defend against the attacks goes all the way to the top.

My involvement with the families goes back almost three years to my first interviews with the four widows who became known as “the Jersey girls.” They were among the families I followed to write my book, Middletown, America. As early as April, 2003, three of the widows--Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Kristen Breitweiser--had been aghast to discover that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared to have effectively sat out one of the worst foreign assaults on the American homeland in the nation’s history. In what may be one of the most remarkable statements in the report, the commission concludes that “[t]he Secretary of Defense did not enter the chain of command until the morning’s key events were over.”

Rumsfeld’s public testimony before the commission last March was bizarre. When Gorelick asked the Secretary of Defense what he had done to protect the nation—or even the Pentagon—during the “summer of threat” preceding the attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that “it was a law-enforcement issue.” (So, observers were left to wonder, should the FBI be out with shoulder-launched missiles?)

“We still don’t have a full accounting of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11,” Gorelick acknowledged after the commission’s final public hearing. “We don’t have answers to the questions that you’re asking. But I’m going to make sure it’s nailed down,” she promised. Yet the final published report offers no further details on Rumsfeld’s inactions or the reason he was “out of the loop” (as the secretary himself put it) that morning.

The National Military Command Center (NMCC) inside the Pentagon was the nerve center of the military’s response to the attacks on 9-11. But the lead military officer that day, Brigadier General Montague Winfield, told the commission that the center had been leaderless.“For 30 minutes we couldn’t find [Secretary Rumsfeld].” Where was Rumsfeld on 9-11? I put the question to the commission's vice chair, Lee Hamilton, following the release of the report the commissioners call “the definitive account of 9-11.”

“We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.”

“He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested.

Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country’s Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down?

“I’m not going to answer that question,” said Hamilton, and turned away. The commission did provide some detail on the movements of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, but none that offers much reassurance. The report shows that nothing Bush and Cheney did or said that day had any effect on the devastation planned by 19 suicide hijackers and their lethal leader—despite warnings going back to 1996 that bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network were an urgent threat to America’s national security.

When President Bush finally agreed to have a “conversation” with the 9-11 commissioners--provided it was not under oath, not recorded, and Cheney was at his side--the account the two top leaders gave was murky and unverifiable. On the crucial matter of whether fighters should be sent up to protect the nation’s capital, for example, the final report says that “the Vice President stated that he called the President to discuss the rules of engagement for ordering [air cover].” But, it continues, the two did not order air cover because it would “do no good unless pilots had instructions on whether they were authorized to shoot if the plane would not divert.” The job of issuing such instructions belonged to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

The commission’s staff report had earlier cited the legal chain of command in case of hijackings: “If a hijack was confirmed, procedure called for … the President to empower the Secretary of Defense to send up a military escort, and if necessary, give pilots shoot-down orders.” The final report confirms the same chain of command and adds this detail: “The president apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00”--more than an hour after the first World Trade Center tower was hit, 20 minutes after the Pentagon was attacked, and moments before Flight 93 was wrestled to the ground by passengers. And even in this brief conversation, the urgent question at hand doesn’t seem to have come up: The report states that “no one can recall the content of this conversation but it was a brief call in which the subject of the shootdown authority was not discussed.”

The President emphasized to the commissioners that he had authorized the shootdown of hijacked aircraft. But the final report states flatly that “there is no documentary evidence for this call.” It notes that neither Cheney’s chief of staff nor his wife Lynne, both of whom were taking notes that morning, made note of a call between the President and Vice President. Only when a military aide rushed into the White House bunker to announce--erroneously, as it turned out--that Flight 93 was 80 miles away from Washington, did Cheney apparently take it upon himself to give the order for fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane.

Don Rumsfeld is known as a take-charge kind of guy. Why was he so uncharacteristically passive in the face of terrorists who were able to kill nearly 3,000 Americans in one morning? It is impossible to answer, and now that the commission has rolled up its report, there will be no forum for follow-up questions. But it is worth noting the ideological context: For years, the secretary had focused on what he considered to be America’s most pressing national security need--and it wasn’t fighting Al Qaeda.

Even before the 2000 presidential election, Rumsfeld commissioned a “blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence” along with his future deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and future-Vice President Cheney, as well as President Bush’s brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush. The plan shows that Bush intended to take military control of Persian Gulf oil, whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power, and intended to retain control of the region even if there was no threat.

The report, written by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century, also advocated “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran. An unnamed British member of Parliament was quoted as saying of the report: “This is a blueprint for U.S. domination--a new world order of their making.” The report also complained that the changes it recommended were likely to take a long time, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” In the summer of 2001, when security agencies were regularly warning of a catastrophic attack by Al Qaeda, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s office “sponsored a study of ancient empires—Macedonia, Rome, the Mongols—to figure out how they maintained dominance,” according to the New York Times.

Hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld was given information that three of the names on the airplane passenger manifests were suspected al-Qaeda operatives. The notes he composed at the time asserted that he wanted the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL. [Usama bin Laden] Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” He presented the idea to Bush the next day. Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke later wrote in his book Against All Enemies, “At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld and [Assistant Defense Secretary] Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.”

Shortly after 9/11, Rumsfeld set up “a small team of defense officials outside regular intelligence channels to focus on unearthing details about Iraqi ties with al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks.” In May, 2002, Time reported that “Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of September 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed.”

i think you guys should take a look at this and see what you guys think

Moore vs. O'Rielly (a debate)
http://67.19.85.90/~richard/oreilly_moore.htm

Skimming this thread, a few things become apparent...

A lot of copy and pasting of "facts" derived from media reports.

The agreement that both Kerry and Bush suck.

And it's quite obvious that Tom couldn't debate his way out of a poorly body-kitted 2g.



Who am I voting for, you may ask? No one.

This is obvious why Tom is making a big deal outta this


HE'S RUNNING FOR E-BITCH OF THE MONTH!!!!


That's something I will vote for ;)

Question is, for who?? :ohmy:

I voted for Tom cuz I think he is the biggest bitch!

So what was Bush supposed to do the morning of 9/11? Trying to coordinate all of his people and get all of the information straight, I am sure. Noone had any idea there was going to be another plane crashing. That is the problem with a large body of people like the government, it takes a lot of time to react.

It is just like the military. If someone attacks your squad, you don't sit around and wait for a general to tell you what to do, you react the best way you can. The same should be true for this situation. The immediate people should have been reacting, then the city, then the state and lastly the nation.

I don't know where you get off calling us closed minded, Tom. We admit that Bush isn't that great, but Kerry is even worse. You are stuck saying Bush is the spawn of Satan and Kerry is our savior.

Noone that hurts themself to get sent home from Vietnam, then becomes a war protestor, is going to get my vote. You say the nation is going to go to hell in a handbasket if Bush stays in office, then why isn't it now? The economy has started to turn around, no thanks to Clinton and his NAFTA bullshit.

:cheers: Cheers to that!!! Until the US can get rid of this crappy 2 party system (or they add a "none of the above" option), I've pretty much given up on voting. We're f'd no matter who's in office.

I agree, if they want to cut worthless jobs, make the first one be the shit in the white house.

i think not voting is a pretty big mistake.

i think the electoral college should be terminated. it is not a faithful representation of the american people. election by popular vote would be nice.

I'm not going to vote for someone I don't want in office. Voting for the sake of voting is liberal hippy crap.

It's my choice not to choose.

Tom, all that "What they did the morning of 9-11" shit it meaningless.You can say they should've did this or they should've done that or I would of did this, but the truth is, until you or me or Michael Moore or any of the other fuckheads making a big deal about it, are in same position as they were under the same circumstances, you/they don't know how you/they would've reacted.I know I don't have a clue how I would've reacted in their shoes (Bush,Rumsfield, etc), so I'm not gonna judge their actions that morning.

I would have pressed the big red button...

http://www.digitalmatt.org/images/missiles.jpg

Les Missles are fired..
NICE!
Now I nap, cause I Le Tired.

Vote for the Dub. :thumbsup:

MNSC has a little photoshop contest going on for an Autovations ticket. Pretty funny stuff - http://forum.mnsportcompacts.net/showthrea...67&page=1&pp=25

Well I don't know if this has been stated or not but who the fuck is getting the damn oil contracts overthere. O could it be friends of Bush, yes I think that who would be getting those contracts and tom Don't fucking stop arguing because well they may have some good point bush is just a fucking dumpass. :stick:

Gee, what proof do you have of that? That is the whole problem with Tom's argument too, no proof! It is all just heresy. For all you know it is Kerry's buddies that are getting the oil contracts.

Stop swearing little one, or someone will have to wash your mouth out with soap...

K fine whatever but to jets coment go see F 9/11 and then you tell me who you think is getting the oil contracts.(I will admit the fact that it is bias)

Do you believe everything you see in the movies?!?