Bush, what is this now, why do you not keep your word and...

[Derek Ortt]

give Saddam another last chance? There is no way that I am going to belive anything you say any more. A last chance is that, not the first of hundreds of last chances http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/20 ... 30219.html


And way to allow the masters of surrender to force us to fight outside of our optimum environment. Everyone, looks like the time table has been pushed back until at least NOVEMBER as there is no way in hell we are going to be launching an invasion in the chemical weapons suits during the heat of the spring and summer. Thank you Bush for placing my and every American's safety in danger, just so you can oppose the masters of surrender. Thank you. I am glad I voted for Buchanan instead of an appeaser like you. And in 2004, I will vote for a real conservative, not a commie appeaser

[M2]

Actually I think we're going to go in within the next 4-6 weeks, not wait til November. Why? Because it costs way too much to keep the forces in-situ without engaging. The Bush Administration is not only looking at this only from a political point of view but also from a logistics & economic standpoint. They have their graphs, charts, projections, assessments, analyses and WAGS (wild ass guesses). When all the numbers & charts intersect at their pre-determined scenarios, they'll Blast into Baghdad. They already know their best timeframes and won't be asking us, for sure If you listen to any of the Generals that discuss these points in the media: Clark, Grange, Shepperd - you understand their perspective. Anyway, they'd have to rotate the existing crop of troops *out* by fall and that's WAY too expensive. They're going in soon.

[vbhoutex]

If it is anything it is a ploy by Bush to put them off their guard. Even though Bush is having to push the Turks and "persuade" a few others, there is no way we will be waiting till November. We already have too many operatives inside Iraq and almost 200,000 troops surrounding them and more on the way. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO WAIT, FINANCIALLY OR POLITICALLY!!

[cycloneye]

Derek dont worrie abourt an invasion in november because it will happen by mid march as the pieces are going to be there by that time as 250,000 troops will be there and the new UN resolution will be offered by the US and the UK making a deadline to Iraq.If France vetoes it then Bush will go after that with the coalition of the willing.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030220-89227416.htm

[Derek Ortt]

We are diluding ourselves into saying the war will begin soon, because we want a war to begin soon. It seems to be the same as often happens on some boards during hurricane season where some people say the hurricane is going to hit them, just because they want the hurricane to hit them. The fact is is that we are delaying significantly because poor baby Bush cannot act independently. And by the time we can attack, we will have lost the will to do so; thus, Saddam is going to get his 100th free pass from the USA. If I were a mideastern country, I'd take this as free reign to do whatever I wanted as the USA would never attack me. The precedent is being set that they will only take care of rouge European states due to fears of rascism that are spread by morons like Mandella

[M2]

Derek Ortt - We are diluding ourselves into saying the war will begin soon, because we want a war to begin soon.... The precedent is being set that they will only take care of rouge European states due to fears of rascism that are spread by morons like Mandella

I don't think we're deluding ourselves; listen closely to Gens. Wesley Clark and Don Shepperd who are on the same page when timing and logistics are discussed. They're not going to book reservations at Elaine's in their names - they'll just 'show up' and get the best table And Mandella is in your neck of the woods now near Jacksonville...and leading war protests.

[Derek Ortt]

Wow, it's sad that that Communist is even allowed to enter the United States of America. Needless to say, I won't be anywhere enar Jacksonville anytime soon.

Also, as an aside, he may have been the one of the least effective world leaders of all time. All he did while S African president was take the country into poverty, increase the crime at least 10 fold, and allow AIDS to spread. He is worthless, IMO

[southerngale]

Derek Ortt wrote:

The fact is is that we are delaying significantly because poor baby Bush cannot act independently. And by the time we can attack, we will have lost the will to do so; thus, Saddam is going to get his 100th free pass from the USA.

NO WAY IN HELL BUSH IS GOING TO GIVE SADDAM A FREE PASS! NO WAY!!!!!

That's what I love about Bush. He will stand up for what he believes is right and he takes care of business. Unfortunately, there's a lot more involved than just "ready, aim, fire"

[chadtm80]

NO BETTER PERSON TO BE LEADING US INTO THIS RIGHT NOT THAN BUSH.

[blizzard]

Chad, I tend to agree with alot that you say here but this last comment is far from what I would agree with. I may be proven wrong, as long as he doesn't pull a daddy Bush on us and pull out before the mission is accomplished. I just don't think that he is a free thinker, he can't make up his own mind about anything. granted, that is what he has a whole plethura of advisors for, but if he is going to take the credit for something, then he had better be the one who thought of it.

Now, on the other hand, I don't think that Gore would have been the one that I would want leading our country into battle either. When it comes to war, let the joint chiefs of staff and the other military heads make the decisions, they are the ones trained for this and have all of the correct logistical thinking required.

[end or rant]

[Derek Ortt]

I voted Buchanan in 2000 as I was not convinced that President Bush stuck by his principles enough, and from what I've seen, he's too easily influenced by the opposition, not just on this issue, but also on the Estrada nomination as well.

As for Gore, I'm glad that I will never vote for a Democrat, except MAYBE Alex Panelis