STORM2K

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... eilly_dc_3

Comming from a conservative man like O Reilly is it is interesting what he says about Bush and the war in Iraq.

its time for bush to resign. let john mccain have the nomination. if bush wont put up a fight, get someone in their who will.

Helen if you do not have enough back bone to stand behind Bush then you never supported him to begin with.

rainstorm wrote:its time for bush to resign. let john mccain have the nomination. if bush wont put up a fight, get someone in their who will.

I agree with you on a lot of things Helen...But that is lunacy

John McCain? Noooooooo

rainstorm wrote:its time for bush to resign. let john mccain have the nomination. if bush wont put up a fight, get someone in their who will.

Folks...consider the source....

Ok guys good debate here but the principal focus of this thread has not been said by anyone and that is what the conservative Bill O Reilly said about Bush and the war in Iraq.Let's try to replie about what this important conservative anchor said.

Well, I don't care if Bill O'Reilly kisses the camera or Diane Sawyer or what. Just because no WMD's have been found doesn't mean squat. They HAD them and now they don't.

The question remains, "Where are they?"

If they destroyed them, fine. Offer proof. Otherwise, I won't believe they did destroy them and I'm worried about WHO has them now.

Bill O'Reilly needs to get his backbone in gear.

I agree 100% GD!

its a bad sign that o'rielly is so upset. as far as me supporting bush. i support fighting the terrorists to the death, and tax cuts, bush did that. i dont think wmd's are important, but if you remember, back when bush and powell were using that as one reason to go to war, i was aghast at that. they did it to try to convince the un to go along with them and it was a mistake.

Well said Duckie and I agree 100%.

Bill O'Reilly is not a Conservative. He is a Independent bordering on Libertarian, at least thats what he says in his books.

I'm surprised that the three sites within the Bekaa Valley in Syria are not being investigated, or even mentioned any longer; in addition to Syrian troops, they are being guarded by former Saddam fedayeen and members of Hezbollah.

What's keeping the world community, much less the coalition forces' governments, from demanding access and on-site investigation?

And, lest we forget...Syria's ruling party is also called Ba'ath.

That's exactly right Jara. I agree with him often, but definitely not all of the time. Not meaning you cyc, but some people perceive him as conservative because he rags on the Clintons. Well, they deserve what he says and he'd say the exact same thing if it was the Bush family stooping to those levels. Of course I don't see that ever being a problem.

streetsoldier wrote:I'm surprised that the three sites within the Bekaa Valley in Syria are not being investigated, or even mentioned any longer; in addition to Syrian troops, they are being guarded by former Saddam fedayeen and members of Hezbollah.

What's keeping the world community, much less the coalition forces' governments, from demanding access and on-site investigation?

And, lest we forget...Syria's ruling party is also called Ba'ath.

I agree with you Bill about Syria getting a free ride about possible WMD transportation to that country from Iraq.I would favor the US to send an ultimatum to Syria to say where in the country those WMD and present them to the UN inspectors and if Hassad dont do nothing then use force against Syria.

streetsoldier wrote:I'm surprised that the three sites within the Bekaa Valley in Syria are not being investigated, or even mentioned any longer; in addition to Syrian troops, they are being guarded by former Saddam fedayeen and members of Hezbollah.

What's keeping the world community, much less the coalition forces' governments, from demanding access and on-site investigation?

And, lest we forget...Syria's ruling party is also called Ba'ath.

thats the problem now soldier. while i dont blame bush, the media and dems will now scream for absolute proof before we do anything. in my opinion, the war on terror has ended. i will provide an interesting column to read.

This report should make you just want to run right on down and vote for John Kerry. According to U.S. and foreign officials, Islamic radicals are being trained at terrorist camps in Pakistan and Kashmir. These terrorists are being trained to join sleeper cells currently operating in the United States.

A high-ranking intelligence chief told the Washington Times in an interview last week that this network of training camps "represents a serious threat to the United States and cannot be ignored." That same official said camps in Pakistan and Kashmir are the source of 400 terrorists. U.S. intelligence officials said the camps are financed in part by various groups, including Al-Qaeda and sources in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, Pakistan denies all of this completely, saying there are no terrorist training camps in their country. This is the same government whose intelligence service had been know to be sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In addition, the Indian government said its army had photographs and other evidence of ongoing terrorist training in Pakistan and Kashmir.

John Kerry? Remember, he would treat all of this as a law enforcement problem. Let's send someone to Pakistan with some search warrants. That ought to do it. Or maybe Kerry can ask the UN to clean this mess up for us.

But what about Bush? How much proof will he need before American troops head into Pakistan to clean out these reported training camps? Is it possible that the constant hammering from the left has made it more difficult for Bush to act on information like this? If so, who presents the greater danger to Americans; the terrorists training in Pakistan, or the Democrats in this country who are sabotaging our will to fight them?

I'm trying to remember where I heard someone talking about how Bush had no choice (one of the Sunday morning news talk shows, I think). And I agreed with it.

They said that if he didn't do something about Iraq and their WMD's (wherever the heck they've hidden them now) and then something DID happen, it would be like it was after 9/11 when so many people criticized him, saying "You knew and you did nothing. You let this happen!"

i agree duck. but thats over now. if these appeasers had been around in 1941, the japanese would have made mince meat of us.