McCain. Altho Powell wouldn't be bad either.
_________________

bmwracer wrote:

PCM, you left Powell out of your poll list.

I know, it's not letting me add more than 2 choices for some odd reason.

The Add Option doesn't seem to be working.
-PCM


--------------------------EDIT

There, got it fixed. Had to close Internet Explorer and then open a new web browser.

Powell, easily.

bmwracer wrote:

Powell, easily.

Frankly, among Bush, Cheney, Edwards, Kerry, McCain, and Powell, I'd give Bush AND Kerry the boot and pick McCain and Powell for President and VP.
-PCM

I don't like Bush at all and I'm not too big on Powell either, that and Time magazine did a special on McCain once and I read it so my vote goes to McCain

Ha, I guess I have bunches to respond regarding this thread. But . . . I'll just watch for now.

For now, I'll say, go read the UN resolution leading up to the invasion of Iraq; you'll see, quite clearly, that "weapons of mass destruction" wasn't the only reason for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was given many years to comply (comply with what, you ask? GO READ THE RESOLUTION to find out) but, just flat out refused. Ignored the UN, not just the U.S.

And if you're STILL on the "weapons of mass destruction tip" after that? Think about the following: intelligence agencies that indicated there WERE "weapons of mass destruction" included Israel's Mossad, UK's MI6, Russia's security agency, among others, in addition to the CIA. What? You think the U.S. President's supposed to IGNORE these warnings? Do NOTHING about it? NOT invade? When Saddam Hussein was given YEARs to cooperate?

Above all, though, the invasion of Iraq wasn't ONLY because of weapons of mass destruction.

But, what I REALLY wanted to say (and, since we're on the subject of intelligence):

niko2x wrote:

Speaking of clinton, i remember when i was still an active duty Marine, i was assigned as part of his security duty for his 2nd inaugeration....

WHOO HOOOO, BODYGUARD NIKO!!!!!!!
AND IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
EEE IIIIIIIII
WILL . . . .

Oh . . .

gregsan wrote:

I personally believe we are where we are today BECAUSE of Clinton.

I personally believe that Reagan-Bush Sr. are responsible for aiding and funding Bin Laden in Afghanistan when he was building his power base there.

vibius wrote:

I personally believe that Reagan-Bush Sr. are responsible for aiding and funding Bin Laden in Afghanistan when he was building his power base there.

OK...but it was different circumstances and it WASN'T terrorism.

vibius wrote:

I personally believe that Reagan-Bush Sr. are responsible for aiding and funding Bin Laden in Afghanistan when he was building his power base there.

On a random note, hey Vibius, is your avatar Katsu Shintaro? Looks like him as Zatoichi, eating a rice ball.
-PCM

I was wondering when The Man was gonna show up and go into his Wally George flag-waving routine...

The Man wrote:

Ha, I guess I have bunches to respond regarding this thread. But . . . I'll just watch for now. For now, I'll say, go read the UN resolution leading up to the invasion of Iraq; you'll see, quite clearly, that "weapons of mass destruction" wasn't the only reason for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was given many years to comply (comply with what, you ask? GO READ THE RESOLUTION to find out) but, just flat out refused. Ignored the UN, not just the U.S. And if you're STILL on the "weapons of mass destruction tip" after that? Think about the following: intelligence agencies that indicated there WERE "weapons of mass destruction" included Israel's Mossad, UK's MI6, Russia's security agency, among others, in addition to the CIA. What? You think the U.S. President's supposed to IGNORE these warnings? Do NOTHING about it? NOT invade? When Saddam Hussein was given YEARs to cooperate? Above all, though, the invasion of Iraq wasn't ONLY because of weapons of mass destruction. But, what I REALLY wanted to say (and, since we're on the subject of intelligence):

People conveniently "forget" that we have FOUND mustard gas and sarin.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/26/iraq.duelfer/index.html

Tough choices.

Bush: I'd still be here writing next week if I tried to put together a quick list of why Bush should be given the boot.

McCain: Tough call. I disagree with some of his social issues, but he comes off as an honest, straight forward guy.

But after all he's seen Bush and his boys do, and all of the lies he's called Bush on... he still stands up on the platform and campaigns for him? I don't think so.

Powell? Again, a man who comes off great in interviews.

But as a General he played a major part in the Iran-Contra debacle (at the time he didn't know a deleted email was retreivable).

And these days, he's shown an amazing ability to bend over and grab his ankles.

Powell has backtracked, and backed off just about every major political statement he's made over the last 3.5 years, because right after he says something the White House calls him in and cuts him off at the ankles.

3 years ago I might have voted for either of these guys. But after watching them both toss off what they know to be right, for the opportunity to stand next to Georgie on the big stage...

Hell, I'd vote for the Gropenator before I'd vote for any of the 3 choices listed above.

pcmodem wrote:

is your avatar Katsu Shintaro? Looks like him as Zatoichi, eating a rice ball. -PCM

Yup. I think some of the funniest Zatoichi moments were when he was eating and getting rice stuck all over his face.

Geezer wrote:

But as a General he played a major part in the Iran-Contra debacle (at the time he didn't know a deleted email was retreivable).

Yikes. I forgot about that. Good point, Geez.

vibius wrote:

Yup. I think some of the funniest Zatoichi moments were when he was eating and getting rice stuck all over his face.

Heh, you guys share a common avatar theme...



Hey, who's the wise guy who voted for Nader?

gregsan wrote:

OK...but it was different circumstances and it WASN'T terrorism.

I do find it a little ironic that when their enemy is our enemy, they are freedom fighters. But when we are the enemy, they are terrorists.

vibius wrote:

I do find it a little ironic that when their enemy is our enemy, they are freedom fighters. But when we are the enemy, they are terrorists.

The difference ain't the enemy. It's the methods.

gregsan wrote:

People conveniently "forget" that we have FOUND mustard gas and sarin.

It's disingenuous to cite that as any kind of threat or reason for invading Iraq.

It's entirely possibly some old munitions were just thrown away, instead of being properly disposed of. It's possible that shell came from Iran, or was dug up from one of the old Iran-Iraq battlefields.

But those old weapons are virtually useless due to age, and to the fact that as far as all the experts agree, they do not exist in large enough quantities to be any kind of threat.

gregsan wrote:

The difference ain't the enemy. It's the methods.

That's precisely my point

vibius wrote:

It's disingenuous to cite that as any kind of threat or reason for invading Iraq.

I think it's disingenuous to ignore findings and say that "nothing" was found...as is commonly stated. The citation I listed is NOT the only weapons found. In fact there have been quite a number of things found, and as The Man stated, it's not all about what we found, and not the only reason cited for going to war.

It's also quite disingenuous to agree before the war (as MANY democrats including Kerry did) that Sadam was dangerous and was a REAL threat as many country's intelligence had indicated and then to claim the intelligence and reasons for going to war was all a lie and we should have never gone to war. What a crock of sh*t.

Quote:

they do not exist in large enough quantities to be any kind of threat.

ummm..actually all you need is a single working warhead and it could kill THOUSANDS of people.