Why I'm voting for Obama in November

[BigBadBrian]

Funny how you include nancy pelosi but leave out Scott Ritter...

Ritter....Really?

It's funny how pedophiles are always discredited...except when they're defending the Left. The Left embraces pedophiles, obviously.

[jhale667]

The Left embraces pedophiles, obviously.

Careful, you almost pulled your entire colon out of your ass with that lie.

[FORD]

Elvis is "the Left" now?

When the fuck did that happen?

And for the record, Scott Ritter was never a pedobear, but it certainly made for some great slander to get him off the air when he was telling the truth about the fact that there were NO WMDS IN IRAQ, didn't it?

And why is Brian suddenly recycling the same old Freak Republic chain letters that "4morequeers" spammed this board with back in 2004??

[jhale667]

Elvis is "the Left" now?

When the fuck did that happen?

Right after he and Brie had a lover's quarrel...

[ELVIS]

Ritter....Really?

It's funny how pedophiles are always discredited...

No, it's funny how they always use bullshit sex charges when they ( you know, the left / right) want to discredit someone...

[ELVIS]

Right after he and Brie had a lover's quarrel...

Go lust over some whore pics...

[jhale667]

Wow, you sure told me....

Go lust over some whore pics...

So.... how long til your wife figures out you really don't like girls?

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah it is... especially when you can't get the plural and singular relationships correct in your grammar "...who don't act like good little boys "

That's the ticket... when all else fails, resort to being a spelling and grammar nazi.

Especially when the grammar-nazi in question is a dipshit who's making spelling and grammatical errors all of the time...

[Nickdfresh]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Nickdfresh]

Petraeus had issues with the Chain of Command. People at the Pentagon and all over the US Army were very happy to see him leave. As far as proving his metal on the battlefield...where did you find that? He saw no combat until 2003 of his military career. McChrystal on the other hand was loved by many (Up and down the Chain of Command) within the US Army. The man fell on his sword in his exit.

Petraeus had his critics and issues, but treatise on counterinsurgency/low intensity conflict is a pretty good primer on what the U.S. Army lost in the 1970's 90's agenda of Cold War mechanized war of maneuver. Some people were glad to see Petreaus 'leave?' McChrystal was 'loved by many?' What does that even mean? Both men have their detractors and supporters...

[Nickdfresh]

Nick likes to make shit up...

Just read his support for Obama...

Why don't you listen to my overnight radio show then, dummy?

[ELVIS]

What's it called, Feelings for Obama ??


Sent from your moms junky droid...

[baru911]

Petraeus had his critics and issues, but treatise on counterinsurgency/low intensity conflict is a pretty good primer on what the U.S. Army lost in the 1970's 90's agenda of Cold War mechanized war of maneuver. Some people were glad to see Petreaus 'leave?' McChrystal was 'loved by many?' What does that even mean? Both men have their detractors and supporters...

What it means is this:
Within the US Army Petreaus was hated. He was viewed as a self-aggrandizing asshole. The people up and down his Chain of Command had no respect for him. He continually jumped over his Superiors. His career was over in the military and people were happy to say "Have a good day....Fuck off" when he went to the CIA.

McChrystal on the other hand was respected throughout his career by the men and women that he served with, under, and over. While the current administration had little time for him; the rank and file thought the world of him. He also did the "right thing" at the end of his career.

I know that the stories in the US press painted both men in different lights than what I have writen. Rolling Stone did a hatchet job on McChrystal and Petreaus was the guy who got all the glory in Iraq when you saw the nightly news. However, what I just wrote is the truth and if you speak with people who served with both men you'll find that I'm painting a very accurate picture.

[Nickdfresh]

What it means is this:
Within the US Army Petreaus was hated. He was viewed as a self-aggrandizing asshole. The people up and down his Chain of Command had no respect for him. He continually jumped over his Superiors. His career was over in the military and people were happy to say "Have a good day....Fuck off" when he went to the CIA.

Based on what? The only real crticism of Petreaus I've heard was his ego and the fact he was quick to try to assimilate anyone who didn't agree with him and try to win them over....

McChrystal on the other hand was respected throughout his career by the men and women that he served with, under, and over. While the current administration had little time for him; the rank and file thought the world of him. He also did the "right thing" at the end of his career.

I know that the stories in the US press painted both men in different lights than what I have writen. Rolling Stone did a hatchet job on McChrystal and Petreaus was the guy who got all the glory in Iraq when you saw the nightly news. However, what I just wrote is the truth and if you speak with people who served with both men you'll find that I'm painting a very accurate picture.

How many people have you spoken with that served with both generals?

[baru911]

Based on what? The only real crticism of Petreaus I've heard was his ego and the fact he was quick to try to assimilate anyone who didn't agree with him and try to win them over....



How many people have you spoken with that served with both generals?

Well, noting the fact that I'm still pretty wired in with a large number of people who serve in the Sec. of the Navy Office, and a pretty good amount of people in Tampa I'm pretty sure that what I have written is the truth. They are ALL highly placed members in the US military and civilians.

Lets go over this again and you can check your sources if they knew either of the men or served in/around them. Petreaus was a self server who jumped over his chain of command all the time to make himself look good. That made him not well liked by all the high ranking members of the US Services. Every wonder why your "Golden Boy" wasn't placed on the Joint Chiefs? Ask around and what you find out will speak VOLUMES about him.

Background on McChrystal and why he was well liked.

1) Dad's a General when he graduates from West Point in 1976. That means he can go ANYWHERE in the US Army he wants to serve as a 1st Lt.
2) In 1976 Armor is king. Want your career on the fast track? You go Armor. Want your career to stall out at Colonel you go Special Forces.
3) What's McChrystal do? He goes Airborne and then into Special Forces. Why? It was a calling.
4) He gets his ticket punched in Intelligence and Armor.
6) Mid 80's - Armor is really King in the US Army. Height of the Cold War. McChrystal rotates out of Armor and what?
7) He goes back and leads a Ranger battalion.
8) Move forward a few more years and he's serving in Joint Operations Command in both Gulf Wars.
9) Goes to school and then returns to the Rangers.
10) You can look up the rest.

The man was and is a class act. He served most of his career knowing that the US Army believed that his area of service was an after thought at best. Special Forces in the mid 1970's - the early 2000's was a very select group that was highly under funded, misunderstood, and yes, hated because others thought that the funds spent there should be going other places. It wasn't the sexy "I gotta be in that area of any Branch of the US Military" that you see today. He is and was a true believer. He drank the Kool Aid and made the Kool Aid better through his service, ideas, and some of what he implemented. He didn't serve to make himself more important. The people around him knew that. He was and is a TRUE LEADER OF MEN.

He also didn't have a medal awarded that he didn't deserve like the guy you seem to be defending. Ask your "sources" they can advise you on that.