"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

So, you wonder why so many wanted to spit in Bush's face when he
first said "We're going to Iraq to help the people"??? I know
two guys who consider themselves EXTREMELY conservative. If they
could give Rush Limbaugh a blowjob every day, they'd do it. But,
they both laughed when Bush began compiling his list of reasons.
They both said "Bull**** - of course it's the oil!"




Who cares if you know "two guys"?

And there's was more than one reason Bush cited for intervening
in Iraq.

The point is that actual conservatives (as opposed to little
robots) know Bush's true reasons. If you could get five minutes in
a room with the man who is ACTUALLY making policy, Karl Rove, he'd
tell you why we're in Iraq, and if you asked him about the initial
list of stupid reasons, he'd probably laugh in your face.

How do you think it would've gone over with the public if your
president had simply said "We're invading Iraq because we believe
it's an integral part of protecting the oil we get from Saudi
Arabia."?

Hmmm? Whattya think?



Ah,now we have people who profess to know the "true reasons"!!
My,are you gullible.

I don't KNOW them. I've done exactly what YOU have, and decided
which ones sound true to ME. You may also be functioning on faith,
but I cannot do that with politicians. Too dangerous.




I'm not faith-based. I read both what the MainStream Media(MSM) put
out,and
what conservative write,and I listen to what President Bush says in
his speeches,not what the MSM "explainers" and "experts" pick for
their sound bites. Then I see what Pres.Bush DOES. He's not 2-faced
like many Democrats,and not rabid as the Democrat leadership.

Whadda ya think of this?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20050712.shtml
"The Left doesn't support the troops and should admit it."

The phrase "support our troops" was concocted for use by animals, with
the sole purpose of being divisive. Even Mark Twain knew it was an
obnoxious concept to base a debate on.




Did you even read the article?

Yes. Interesting and well written, but I stand by my statement, Jim. Catchy
slogans are of little value except to the people who create them. However,
they *do* make people feel like they're members of the "club du jour", which
some people need for some reason.