Thoughts on Bush.....carried to new topic

I think he's doing a great job. Misinformation about weapons of mass destruction? I really think not at all! While in Air Assault school when I was active duty, there was a Sgt. there who had gone to the Gulf war. He was an E-6, or an E-7, definately very seasoned, and older. His platoon came up on this bunker and decided to check it out and see what it contained. Upon entering, they found hundreds of chemical filled warheads! Needlessly to say, they backed out VERY CAREFULLY, called higher up, who sent in a team to detonate the bunker from a distance. Now I think EVERYONE in this room has heard of "Saudi Syndrome", and most people have a pretty good idea of what happened. Basically, when they detonated the bunker, a swift breeze happened along, and blew the cloud formed from the explosion back on some of our own troops! Now, here's where you have to put one and one together and make two. One of said troops, I worked with briefly as the company clerk while recovering from an injury that required surgery. He had "Saudi Syndrome", and had a WHOLE DRAWER FULL of medications trying to treat it! I would guess around 40-50 different medications he had to take SEVERAL times a day! Ok, now lets put this together with what we've already discovered in Iraq since the Iraqi war and see if we can't come up with three and four. We've found mobile chemical weapons labs, I mean, come on, why would they be mobile if they were designed to do *anything* other than what they were designed to do. (Welp, there's three). And we've also confiscated warheads which are designed to carry chemical weapon payloads. (Welp, there's four). No, we might not have found anything, but as many hidden underground bunkers as he has built, it wouldn't take much to build one specifically to hide all the materials in, which was also designed to be blown if need be forever sealing it's contents underground! (I'm sure that's what has happened when the first bombs started falling in fact). Guys, you might have read, or saw on TV about that bunker, and the media's speculation, etc etc......But I had a friend who was *IN* that bunker and saw with his very own eyes what was there, and another friend that is still to this day suffering from the effects of what that cloud did to him when they blew the very same bunker!

All in all, I would have to say Bush did the right thing, and support him fully in his efforts! Even if we never do find any weapons of mass destruction, that's a good thing! I'm sure he will never have the chance again ever. The fact that we got his two sons was the biggest thing I think about this whole war, as he was on his way out, and his sons were on the way in anyway. It definately sends a strong message to the other rogue dictatorships in the world! Just a few thoughts...............


[glow=red,2,300]Happytrails............[/glow]

No, we might not have found anything, but as many hidden underground bunkers as he has built, it wouldn't take much to build one specifically to hide all the materials in, which was also designed to be blown if need be forever sealing it's contents underground! (I'm sure that's what has happened when the first bombs started falling in fact).

let me say that i agree with you and that i support
our troops, voted for bush and will again. however, there was mention made on one newscast wondering why saddam would hide wmd yet the troops were able to find huge amounts of money. why wouldn't he take the money with him instead of leaving it in plain sight and hiding wmd? just a thought

eileen

Does anyone remember that there were reports of a large ship leaving Iraqs harbour just before the attacks began. What ever happened to that ship. and what was it loaded with. That is a question that was never answered. WMD, Perhaps ???

ColoradoCop 8)

Maybe, but I bet there was a load of money in it too.

Money wasn't something he was lacking in, being one of the big oil producing countries, and being the one collecting that money from his whole country's exports. Money laying around? lol, How about all the mansions, palaces, shrines, etc? Shoot, any paper money we found laying around wasn't much more than toilet paper to him. Besides, as I recall, his sons had all their "escape" money smuggled outta the country in the form of diamonds. (Something which can't be frozen by a bank, or devalued as a monetary note). And as I also recall, he never signed any contract about leaving money around, he did however at the end of the gulf war sign the concessions pertaining to WMD. As long as no WMD are found, he can find places to hide, if they are in fact found, the whole world will be looking for him as he promised NATO in writing that he would NEVER proceed with any plans of developing them.


[glow=red,2,300]Happytrails........[/glow]

I completely agree. Our President led the world, and did the right thing! I don't think anyone will mourn the loss of Saddam, or his regime.

President Bush stepped up and did the right thing at the right time!

Remember that I live on the "Left Coast" and am very much in the minority of public opinion up here. However, when the liberals begin their song and dance, I simply ask them when they are moving to France? ;D

Gregg

Politics -- like the other posting about religion and the flag -- is certainly dangerous territory. But clearly any decision that puts our troops in harm's way needs to be made for the right reasons -- and if we don't debate it, we are not fulfilling our responsibility as a citizen of a republican (that's a "small" r) democracy.

Here are two recent newspaper articles. Draw your own conclusions:

Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Aug 28 -- Jay Bookman)

For months now, former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay and a military team of roughly 1,400 people have been interviewing captured Iraqis and sifting through documents. In a few weeks, they will probably report that while no weapons have been found, Saddam did retain the intent and ability to someday reconstitute WMD programs if given the chance.
However, that is a far cry from the alleged imminent threat that drove us into invasion.
Kay himself, asked by Chris Matthews back in April what discoveries would justify our invasion, set the standard clearly: "I think to most reasonable people, if you find biological weapons, anthrax, certainly if you found smallpox work, that should do it. In the chemical area, any nerve agent, VX particularly, ought to be of concern to everyone in the world."
We will not find those things; Kay's standard will not be met. Whether by design or mistake, our leaders inflated a low-level risk into a high-level risk, and as a result we misplayed our hand.
But that wasn't the biggest mistake. Because our leaders also fooled themselves into believing that U.S. forces would be welcomed like heroes by a grateful Iraqi people, they made no provision in case things went differently. Back in March, in fact, Tim Russert posed a question to Vice President Dick Cheney that has proved almost visionary.
"If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?" Russert asked.
"Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators," Cheney said. "I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

Newsweek (Aug 28 -- Christopher Dickey)

Incoming e-mails make a soothing noise, a delicate chime, when they arrive on my computer at work. Since I signed up to get news bulletins from the Department of Defense I’ve learned to dread the sound.
About once a day the bell tolls and there’s an item on the screen that reads “DoD Identifies Army Casualty,” or “Army Casualties,” or “Navy Casualty” from the war in Iraq. The news releases are cryptic: a name, a place, a unit, a home town and very, very briefly the cause of death.
Thus “Spc. Rafael L. Navea, 34, of Pittsburgh, PA,” died on Aug. 27—just yesterday—in Fallujah when “an improvised explosive device struck his vehicle.” (Typically, an “improvised explosive device” is a couple of artillery shells that are wired together by the Iraqi guerrillas and set off with a remote detonator. The effect is devastating and direct.)...
... What’s clear is that as of yesterday, according to the Pentagon’s conservative figures, more American soldiers (140) have died in Iraq since May 1 than were killed in the war that went before (139). I count at least 60 of the 140 shot or killed by shrapnel. Other reporters put the figure closer to 70. The number of wounded, which the DoD does not publish in press releases, is much higher. From May 1 to Aug. 6, when I grilled a military briefer on the question in Baghdad, there were almost 400 Americans so badly wounded in action that they could not return to active duty.
But the statistics don’t really tell you what any of that means. It’s only when hometown reporters seek out the families of the dead that we start to learn something of what these people were like before they were reduced to collective numbers and cryptic press releases. You find out that Spc. Eric R. Hull, 23, of Uniontown, Pa., who was killed in Baghdad on Aug. 18 while serving with a military police unit, had been married to his wife, Missy, for five years and had two kids: Mia Nicole, who will be 3 next month, and 1-year-old Dominic. Hull wasn’t a professional soldier, or even a cop. He was a cook. He worked as a chef at a Pennsylvania resort, and, according to his mother, “He made the best Alfredo you’ll ever taste.”

I suppect that the media's take on this is a little one sided. Those are things to consider but there are others as well. Saudi King Fahd is old and in ill health. When he goes there will be lots of fighting in that country (a country we have invested billions of dollars in) and most likely the country will be split into 4 or more smaller countries. All stability in the reagon will be lost. A friendly, stable government in the area is greatly desired by us. If it is not in place get ready for $5/gallon gas and very heavy restrictions on its use (i.e. no more RVs).

The up side to all of this is that the fuel cell tech guys seem about ready to go into production. Within 5 years or so we may be running our cars, homes, and campers on very cheap, clean, quiet fuel.

Like someone else said, politics, the Flag, and religion can be very dangerous topics! Having said that I supported Bush in the elections, I support his overseas policies still, and wholeheartedly support our troops. Where I do find fault with President Bush is in his domestic policy, in particular his environmental policy! Vermont has been hit with emissions from everything that's done out midwest and west, from burning impure coal to testing Nuclear devices, we don't need more emissions here! Having said that, given the possible choices for Democratic candidates for Pres. I will support Bush again!!! Especially if our former Gov Howard "Let me sc--w the nation the way I did Vermont" Dean wins it! Wanna drive some Interstates that are rougher than your dirt roads? Visit Vermont and see what happens when you funnel money AWAY from paving projects but vote $3 million for a bike path bridge!!!

RE: Fuel Cell Technology. Clean, quite,
yes, Cheap ? Maybe not, All of the fuel cell cars I have read about use GASOLINE which is converted into electricity in the fuel cell. The car is powered by an electric motor, the only by product is water, so it is emission free. But, if the fuel cell allows 80 mpg you better believe the oil companies will push the price of gas to the point that it would be equal to what we have now. I don't think they will allow 80 mpg cars to be running on 2 dollar a gallon gas.

Just my 2 cents

Jack