Politics - 17 August 2007

Duke Cunningham?

How about jefferson of the $90,000 cash in the freezer?

2007-08-17 10:16:52 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-17 10:11:28 · 27 answers · asked by . 5

2007-08-17 10:11:20 · 10 answers · asked by Ayomide B 1

By the way, he spent a total of 29 hours there.

2007-08-17 10:10:55 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-17 10:03:43 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm sure the democrats think so. Why not blame him for this, like you do for everything else.

2007-08-17 10:03:00 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

after Democrat's debates? America does not want a leftist socialist to be in charge of America.

2007-08-17 10:02:53 · 21 answers · asked by a bush family member 7

Just hope for a nation that gives in to anything?? Because, no matter what anyone thinks...Bush, yes, he remains in charge.

So, as a liberal do you expect Bush...or the Nation to give in?? (Despite the Iraq War??)

I think not.

God Bless our troops...our President and have faith in the good Lord.

2007-08-17 10:02:21 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-17 10:02:17 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

I had an interesting chat with a military intel officer who had recently returned from Iraq. For what it's worth, I thought I'd share the info he related to me with you.
I had asked this officer about the misinformation regarding the WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion. What he told me was surprising.
The intel about the WMD in Iraq came directly from Saddam Hussein himself. Our military had hacked onto Saddam's private phone lines and had been monitoring his conversations with his generals for years. During these conversations, on what Saddam thought was a secure line, our military listened in on his conversations about WMD development and deployment.
Thru the years, Saddam had several generals executed for failures in developing the weapon systems Saddam wanted. Saddam's weapons development program was going nowhere until a certain general, whose name I didn't get, was appointed the task. After that man took charge great strides were reported to Hussein. This progress was backed up with gadgets and activity that was spotted on our spy satellites. Saddam was convinced over time by this general that Iraq possessed a ready system of WMD.
According to the intel officer I spoke with, they even monitored Saddam ordering his general to use the WMD on our troops when the invasion began. The general stalled Hussein up to the last minute by telling Saddam of repeated technical problems that were preventing the firing of the weapons.
The conclusion of military intelligence at the Pentagon was that this general simply lie to Hussein about his progress with WMD so he wouldn't be executed like the others who came before him.
This info about wiretapping Hussein's secure lines has not been released to the public because of the problems that happened during the Reagan administration. Some of you should recall the incident during Reagan's term when 2 Russian migs shot down a US airliner over Korea. Reagan shocked the world by releasing the cockpit conversations of the Russian pilots. Up to that point, the Russians had no idea we could monitor their secure com lines. The Russians upgraded their security, and it took years for our guys to hack back into it.

So there's the revelation. An Iraqi general lied to Hussein about building WMD to save his behind. Saddam believed him. Our intel officers believed him. And President Bush believed our intel officers.

Althought I am not a Bush supporter, it is at least good to know Bush did not lie about the WMD. He was acting on what seem to be information from the horse's mouth.

Any thoughts?

2007-08-17 09:58:41 · 13 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6

Is he trying to get even richer off of companies that Dems degrade all of the time?

Doesn't Edwards say he supports poor people instead of rich money-grubbing companies?

2007-08-17 09:56:04 · 10 answers · asked by junglejoe 2

2007-08-17 09:52:26 · 7 answers · asked by . 5

I say Naynay nay. What about you? What are your reasons behind your answer?

2007-08-17 09:50:33 · 52 answers · asked by Anonymous

She says President Bush has "dangerously put the cart before the horse" when referring to a special type of nuclear bomb called a bunkerbuster (B61-11). Bill Clinton did the same as President Bush when dealing with the "bunkerbuster" nuclear bombs.

She also wrongly says that President Bush is "planning to rush ahead with new nuclear weapons". She doesn't know that bunkerbuster nukes are not new. Versions of bunkerbusters have been around since the 1970's. Her own husband was the first president in history to deploy bunkerbuster nukes (B61-11) for use in war. Prior presidents all of the way back to Carter did not deploy bunkerbuster nukes.

She also fails to know that during Bill Clintons presidency, bunkerbuster (B61-11) missile tests were performed. This picture shows the missile flying through a thick concrete wall. http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/blu-113-2.gif

2007-08-17 09:48:44 · 3 answers · asked by a bush family member 7

DO NOT FORGET"

I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?" Now I know why. I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"
Now I know why.
Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.
On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators.
Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.
I will not be manipulated. I will not pretend to understand. I will not forget. I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting. I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president." I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."
And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely - nor should they be expected to show deference." I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America. I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.
I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport. I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of expression to chant anti-American obscenities. I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.
I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality. I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?
There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!" I will force myself to: -hear the weeping-feel the helplessness-imagine the terror-sense the panic-smell the burning flesh- experience the loss- remember the hatred.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?" Now I know. We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.
-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)

Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine.

2007-08-17 09:44:29 · 27 answers · asked by xenypoo 7

I am not talking about all the candidates. I mean out of all the people in the country who were eligible to be president, do you think Bush was the #1 best person for the job? How about in the top 100? Top 1000? And if not, do you think any of the other candidates were in the top 1, 100, or 1000? And if none of them were, does this show a flaw in the way we get people to become candidates?

Sorry, these are a lot of questions, but it is a lot to ponder.

2007-08-17 09:42:34 · 6 answers · asked by Take it from Toby 7

2007-08-17 09:29:17 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

Dems did all they can but Dubya is still occupying the White House today.

Hmmmm...I guess your best wasn't good enough, Dems.

2007-08-17 09:27:40 · 22 answers · asked by Frank Dileo 3

Often times, choosing instead to just berate the questioner, or go off on some rant about how bad conservatives are... or some other trivial thing that has nothing to do with the question.

2007-08-17 09:22:35 · 41 answers · asked by Anonymous

... associated with Clinton?

It sure seems that could be the only reason. Right?

2007-08-17 09:18:23 · 8 answers · asked by junglejoe 2

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- A small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to a Texas base, U.S. officials said.

The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show.

See link - http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070816/pl_bloomberg/ajkoyhuchw0m;_ylt=Autdued2ZOoKGt.TIW8KDn.s0NUE

Question - What are your thoughts ?

2007-08-17 09:18:11 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

If Mr.Bush was not elected President, then does this mean that we would not be in Iraq/Afghanistan today?Would the middle east be at peace.??would our gas prices be 1.00 dollar a gallon?Would the tsunamis not have occurred?Would Katrina not have happened?Would 9-11 not have happened?We would just be a big happy world today, not bothered by anything, living high on the hog.Why do some believe that the world would of been different if anyone either than Bush would have been elected.?.Dont all politicians have agendas?Mr.Bush is not to blame for these events, he is OUR elected President while these events unfolded, this is our Nations destiny, not Mr.Bush's choice..the time to get off the Bush bashing bandwagon is NOW.

2007-08-17 09:17:35 · 29 answers · asked by LAVADOG 5

Keep in mind that Hillary and Reid voted to renew it --- the 2 most powerful Dems in the Senate. I guess they agree with Bush that it's important.

2007-08-17 09:15:55 · 19 answers · asked by Duminos 2

this not meant to be a inflamitory question as im sure will be said but rather a honest look into the stopped, blocked and delayed investigations of thes buildings. it was not until 411 days later, after much pressure from the american people that a investigation even took place. never in u.s. history has this happened. investigations have always been launched within hours or days. the nist report and the 9/11 commission report, or ommission report as i like to call it, cleary are the act of a cover up and the hiding and supression of the truth. please take a little time to examine the evidence, listen to the experts, the fireman, first responders, and see actual video footage that you did not see in mainstream media. give me your honest opinion.
nist report 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4epUmPXXtbU
nist report 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VJGILSOr2k
nist report 3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1280538348624036762&q=nist+report&total=105&start=10&num=10&so=0&t

2007-08-17 09:12:54 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-17 09:12:18 · 4 answers · asked by Dude #2369™ 4

... (for the most part)

or is it harder for you to understand, than to express?

these days there is soooo much distance between the 'right' and the 'left' the rhetoric is astonishing ... so I'm wondering if you all feel it's more difficult for you to express your views, or you find its more difficult to understand why others feel the way they do

... and if you're in touch with what I'm talking about ... how can we educate ourselves to improve our communication

or is it simply a question of 'lack' of humility and accountability hiding behind a PC

2007-08-17 09:07:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-17 09:02:03 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-17 08:59:37 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Same BS, different name...

2007-08-17 08:59:25 · 4 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

From politicians to entertainers - you can find example after example of liberals who make public anti-Semitic remarks. Why are they often given a pass for this abhorrent behavior?

2007-08-17 08:52:42 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous