Bush optimistic about Iraq despite intelligence report - GoFuckYourself.com

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 04:57 PM

After all, WTF does he know about " intelligence " ????

Quote:

Bush optimistic about Iraq despite intelligence report
'Freedom is on the march'
Thursday, September 16, 2004 Posted: 2138 GMT (0538 HKT)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush speaks to the National Guard convention.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- While a new intelligence estimate offers a gloomy assessment of Iraq's future, President Bush talks instead about brighter days ahead under a new prime minister and the promise of free elections. "Freedom is on the march," he told a campaign rally Thursday.

Iraq is a daily theme of Bush's campaign speeches, often a springboard for attacking Democratic rival John Kerry. But Bush does not speak about the more than 1,000 U.S. deaths, the highly publicized kidnappings, executions and beheadings, or the dark scenarios outlined in the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate that was presented to him in late July.

The new report offers a sobering picture of Iraq's future in terms of political, economic and security conditions.

President Bush speaks at a rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota, Thursday, as two security agents stand watch.

eroswebmaster · 09-16-2004, 04:59 PM

Spin baby spin...that's all these politicians know how to do...and fuckers lap it up like it's mama's milk.

scoobydookc · 09-16-2004, 05:08 PM

First I would like to say, I'm not going to vote either this election, or any election. So don't start the slamming of my views here.... Secondly, I CAN NOT WATCH ANY NEWS PROGRAMMING ANYMORE! This is exactly what's wrong with the NEWS in this country. This was reported by the AP.... Read this specific part:

"Iraq is a daily theme of Bush's campaign speeches, often a springboard for attacking Democratic rival John Kerry. But Bush does not speak about the more than 1,000 U.S. deaths, the highly publicized kidnappings, executions and beheadings, or the dark scenarios outlined in the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate that was presented to him in late July."

This should have been stopped right before the "BUT." Even the springboard into attacking Kerry could have been omitted. Why can't people just REPORT THE FACTS without throwing in their slant?

Don't get me wrong, every one does it one way or another.... But someone explain this to me.... In Kansas City, they just caught a serial killer who killed 6 prostitutes in about 2 months. When they noticed it was being done by one person, the police went out and talked to the hookers "MAKE SURE YOU'RE BEING CAREFUL," and also asked questions as to whether they knew anything. They had a hidden camera showing these officers asking these women these things, ON THE STREET! The news then went on to interview one of the victim's sisters.... After the sobbing exclusive story, they then said she lived a "HIGH-RISK LIFESTYLE," she was a crackhead hooker.

Why are the police out there warning prostitutes -- who are performing an illlegal act -- to 'be careful' while street walking, instead of arresting them? What was to gain by calling a crackhead hooker just someone who lived "a high risk lifestyle?" This is insane... someone help...

alexg · 09-16-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
After all, WTF does he know about " intelligence " ????

President Bush speaks at a rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota, Thursday, as two security agents stand watch.

Iraq's future can't be worse then during the days of Saddam.

Ironhorse · 09-16-2004, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alexg
Iraq's future can't be worse then during the days of Saddam.

According to many Iraqis things were much better under Saddam.

scoobydookc · 09-16-2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironhorse
According to many Iraqis things were much better under Saddam.

According to Dan Rather?

They were probably forged Iraqis... I saw the report, they were mexican....

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alexg
Iraq's future can't be worse then during the days of Saddam.

You are right...

It cannot be worse ...

IT IS WORSE !!!!

Religious extremist are talking control of cities.
Iraq will probably be in a civil war wiithin the next year
It will be divided in three different terrorist states ( Kurds in North, Shiites in South, Sunnis in the Triangle ).

Like it or not, Saddam was controling Iraq, keeping it free of religious extremists and terrorists, much to the liking of the US, till the Kuwait invasion ( friends of Saudia Arabia ).

Then, sunny had to teach the bad man that you do not bully his father:

1000 + americans military dead
6000 + injured and handicapped for life
American families destroyed
30000 civilans Iraquis deads
No water, no electricity, no FUEL !!!
Kids don't go to scholl anymore, they work or try to
Women rights are over

No. The future looks bright....\

You really are brainwashed ...

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scoobydookc

They were probably forged Iraqis... I saw the report, they were mexican....

Like the WMD .. according to Bush ????

alexg · 09-16-2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironhorse
According to many Iraqis things were much better under Saddam.

did you speak to many Iraqis?

alexg · 09-16-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
You are right...

It cannot be worse ...

IT IS WORSE !!!!

Religious extremist are talking control of cities.
Iraq will probably be in a civil war wiithin the next year
It will be divided in three different terrorist states ( Kurds in North, Shiites in South, Sunnis in the Triangle ).

Like it or not, Saddam was controling Iraq, keeping it free of religious extremists and terrorists, much to the liking of the US, till the Kuwait invasion ( friends of Saudia Arabia ).

Then, sunny had to teach the bad man that you do not bully his father:

1000 + americans military dead
6000 + injured and handicapped for life
American families destroyed
30000 civilans Iraquis deads
No water, no electricity, no FUEL !!!
Kids don't go to scholl anymore, they work or try to
Women rights are over

No. The future looks bright....\

You really are brainwashed ...

of course NOW things are worse.. It's war time

during war things are never good.

I believe the thread was about the FUTURE

The Truth Hurts · 09-16-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
Like the WMD .. according to Bush ????

according to Bush, John Kerry, Bill (hero) Clinton, and just about everyone else on the planet.

scoobydookc · 09-16-2004, 05:29 PM

"Women rights are over"

Aren't they allowed to go in public without the skimask or headwrap (whatever the fuck they call it) now?

"30000 iraqi civilians dead"

I want to see the source, if it starts with Alja... don't bother...

"Religious extremist are talking control of cities.
Iraq will probably be in a civil war wiithin the next year
It will be divided in three different terrorist states ( Kurds in North, Shiites in South, Sunnis in the Triangle )."

2 out of the 3 were pontifications from your desk... The first I would like proof of....

"Saddam was controling Iraq, keeping it free of religious extremists and terrorists"

It is a known fact, there are terrorist training grounds in Iraq. Maybe if you train them they will not bother you, maybe if you're LIKE them they won't bother you.

The fact is the guy had torture chambers, raped, beat, cut limbs off and ripped tongues out of anyone who didn't agree with him. There ARE gigantic mass graves with THOUSANDS of people in them, he invaded a country nearby and tested WMD's in the late 80's early 90's on his OWN PEOPLE.

We've merely taken this force away, now those people have freedom and don't know what the hell to do with it.

theking · 09-16-2004, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
You are right...

It cannot be worse ...

IT IS WORSE !!!!

Religious extremist are talking control of cities.
Iraq will probably be in a civil war wiithin the next year
It will be divided in three different terrorist states ( Kurds in North, Shiites in South, Sunnis in the Triangle ).

Like it or not, Saddam was controling Iraq, keeping it free of religious extremists and terrorists, much to the liking of the US, till the Kuwait invasion ( friends of Saudia Arabia ).

Then, sunny had to teach the bad man that you do not bully his father:

1000 + americans military dead
6000 + injured and handicapped for life
American families destroyed
30000 civilans Iraquis deads
No water, no electricity, no FUEL !!!
Kids don't go to scholl anymore, they work or try to
Women rights are over

No. The future looks bright....\

You really are brainwashed ...

Since you apparently are the new propaganda minister for the "insurgents" in Iraq would someone please post an appropiate photo of Baghdad Bob...maybe along with an appropiate title...so that it can be used everytime the America hating directfiesta posts.

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scoobydookc
"Women rights are over"

Aren't they allowed to go in public without the skimask or headwrap (whatever the fuck they call it) now?

The first threat is one of exclusion. Right now, it seems that women's voices in the postwar reconstruction process may not be heard at all.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p11s02-coop.html
( this is the Christian Science Monitor: no real link to alj...)

Quote:

Originally posted by scoobydookc
""30000 iraqi civilians dead"

I want to see the source, if it starts with Alja... don't bother...

War's exact toll on Iraqis may never be known
Estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000 violent deaths since March 2003
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...sdate=9/9/2004

Quote:

Originally posted by scoobydookc
""Religious extremist are talking control of cities.
Iraq will probably be in a civil war wiithin the next year
It will be divided in three different terrorist states ( Kurds in North, Shiites in South, Sunnis in the Triangle )."

2 out of the 3 were pontifications from your desk... The first I would like proof of....

BAGHDAD, 13 Sep 2004 (IRIN) - Fighting in the northern city of Tal Afar, thought to be a haven for foreign fighters, has displaced tens of thousands of people, aid agencies told IRIN on Tuesday.

At least 40 people have been killed in the city, which has fallen under insurgent control and is considered a "no-go" area for US troops, according to news reports. The US Army says the city of 350,000 has become a haven for fighters crossing into Iraq from Syria.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=43175

Quote:

Originally posted by scoobydookc
""Saddam was controling Iraq, keeping it free of religious extremists and terrorists"

It is a known fact, there are terrorist training grounds in Iraq. Maybe if you train them they will not bother you, maybe if you're LIKE them they won't bother you.

The fact is the guy had torture chambers, raped, beat, cut limbs off and ripped tongues out of anyone who didn't agree with him. There ARE gigantic mass graves with THOUSANDS of people in them, he invaded a country nearby and tested WMD's in the late 80's early 90's on his OWN PEOPLE.

We've merely taken this force away, now those people have freedom and don't know what the hell to do with it.

Now, how about you show a valid claim ( not from Fox ... lol ... ) about:
It is a known fact, there are terrorist training grounds in Iraq.

The rest about torture chambers : americans should pass on that very quick....

Anything else I can do to educate a trailer park idiot ????

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Since you apparently are the new propaganda minister for the "insurgents" in Iraq would someone please post an appropiate photo of Baghdad Bob...maybe along with an appropiate title...so that it can be used everytime the America hating directfiesta posts.

pigshit

BTW, you said that about my claim that cities were no more under US control. There is more than 10 major cities were US troops dont go in...

And no, look for yourself between two drinks.

or look above for one link

scoobydookc · 09-16-2004, 05:54 PM

"Estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000 violent deaths since March 2003 "

EXACTLY, it could be 10,000 to 30,000, you know somewhere in there.... Just like a weatherman saying Ivan will end up somewhere between Oregon and Maine...

Now it's not Fox News, and I'll let you take your pick as to which source you want to hear it from, and some provide photographs. It was mentioned lightly when we were at war with them on one of the news networks, but still no follow up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...salman+pak+707

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scoobydookc
"Estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000 violent deaths since March 2003 "

EXACTLY, it could be 10,000 to 30,000, you know somewhere in there.... Just like a weatherman saying Ivan will end up somewhere between Oregon and Maine...

Now it's not Fox News, and I'll let you take your pick as to which source you want to hear it from, and some provide photographs. It was mentioned lightly when we were at war with them on one of the news networks, but still no follow up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...salman+pak+707

Not much to say anymore ... That shut you up pretty good.

here is from your lousy google link:

Quote:

Rush Limbaugh released high-resolution satellite imagery today, on his website, of Iraq?s Salman Park terrorist training center.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/866766/posts

Let me tell you kid that if this had any merrit, Dick "the prick" Cheney would be on it every fucking day... and Powell would have grabbed that to save the face....

Please, do use Fox from now on; I never tought you could find worse...

Rush Limbaugh released....

vivalaspam · 09-16-2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
Like the WMD .. according to Bush ????

Dont forget to throw in the Russian Government, British Government, and several others that have admitted to giving the U.S. intel that said that saddam in fact had weapons of mass destruction.

Damn Knucklehead....

theking · 09-16-2004, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
pigshit BTW, you said that about my claim that cities were no more under US control. There is more than 10 major cities were US troops dont go in...

And no, look for yourself between two drinks.

or look above for one link

If there are "No Go Zones" they were established by the micro-management of politicians be they American politicians and or a combination of American politicians and Iraqi politicians. It is apparent to me that the micro-management by the politicians (much like what took place in Vietnam) may very well prevent the US from accomplishing its mission in Iraq. This is a fear that I have expressed periodically from prior to the invasion to post invasion. The reason that these "No Go Zones" have been established is because the decision has been made by politicians not to allow the military to crush the enemy that are located in these areas. The military can crush the will of these people to fight if they are allowed to do so...by the use of our air power alone. By not allowing our military to persue the mission in Iraq as it should be persued the conflict will be prolonged...which actually increases the KIA's and WIA's for our forces and for the Iraqi people...fighters as well as non fighters...and the mission will probably not be accomplished. If the micro-management continues...and I think it will...I will be writing to my congressman at some point in time...as well as to the White House...to bring our troops home. The US forces can take almost 100% control of the security within Iraq within thirty days if they were to be allowed to. It would be brutal...but in the long run...would save lives on both sides...and would allow for the mission to be accomplished. There is not any nice way to conduct war and accomplish the mission.

You quoted a figure of 10-30 thousand dead Iraqi's but several thousand of that number have been killed by Iraqi's. Just in the last few months more than 700 Iraqi police have been killed by their fellow Iraqi's and or foreign fighters.

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
If there are "No Go Zones" they were established by the micro-management of politicians be they American politicians and or a combination of American politicians and Iraqi politicians. It is apparent to me that the micro-management by the politicians (much like what took place in Vietnam) may very well prevent the US from accomplishing its mission in Iraq. This is a fear that I have expressed periodically from prior to the invasion to post invasion. The reason that these "No Go Zones" have been established is because the decision has been made by politicians not to allow the military to crush the enemy that are located in these areas. The military can crush the will of these people to fight if they are allowed to do so...by the use of our air power alone. By not allowing our military to persue the mission in Iraq as it should be persued the conflict will be prolonged...which actually increases the KIA's and WIA's for our forces and for the Iraqi people...fighters as well as non fighters...and the mission will probably not be accomplished. If the micro-management continues...and I think it will...I will be writing to my congressman at some point in time...as well as to the White House...to bring our troops home. The US forces can take almost 100% control of the security within Iraq within thirty days if they were to be allowed to. It would be brutal...but in the long run...would save lives on both sides...and would allow for the mission to be accomplished. There is not any nice way to conduct war and accomplish the mission.

You quoted a figure of 10-30 thousand dead Iraqi's but several thousand of that number have been killed by Iraqi's. Just in the last few months more than 700 Iraqi police have been killed by their fellow Iraqi's and or foreign fighters.

Oh fuck, a drunky rant ...

Long time since you used " Conus" , kingyboy ....

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

You quoted a figure of 10-30 thousand dead Iraqi's but several thousand of that number have been killed by Iraqi's. Just in the last few months more than 700 Iraqi police have been killed by their fellow Iraqi's and or foreign fighters.

Where in my original post have I claimed or let beleive that those deaths were by the US only ( as you try to imply). I just stated 30000 civilians dead. Thats all.

theking · 09-16-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
Where in my original post have I claimed or let beleive that those deaths were by the US only ( as you try to imply). I just stated 30000 civilians dead. Thats all.

You made the implication...not I...and you do not know how many civilians are dead...and FYI it is civilians that are the enemy. We defeated the Iraqi military in the first few weeks...all of the current fighters are civilians...and those civilians that are not "fighters" are still the enemy because they harbor and give succor to the "fighters".

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
You made the implication...not I...and you do not know how many civilians are dead...and FYI it is civilians that are the enemy. We defeated the Iraqi military in the first few weeks...all of the current fighters are civilians...and those civilians that are not "fighters" are still the enemy because they harbor and give succor to the "fighters".

Here is again that part of the original post:

Quote:

1000 + americans military dead
6000 + injured and handicapped for life
American families destroyed
30000 civilans Iraquis deads
No water, no electricity, no FUEL !!!
Kids don't go to scholl anymore, they work or try to
Women rights are over

So with your logic, was I also implicating that the US killed 1000 US troops, or wounded 6000 US military ????

I didn't do that, but you tried to atrtribute that to me, to no avail.

Quote:

By you, TheKing:
...all of the current fighters are civilians...and those civilians that are not "fighters" are still the enemy because they harbor and give succor to the "fighters".

So, basically, the US are fighting against the people they want to liberate .... This seems sort of odd. doesn'it ????

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 06:35 PM

to get back on topic:

Quote:

CIA's Bleak Outlook On Iraq

CBS/AP) The National Intelligence Council presented President Bush this summer with several pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq, including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005.

In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that ? at best ? stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."

The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for Mr. Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there.

This latest assessment was performed by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials that provides long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community.

Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved the intelligence document, which runs about 50 pages.

The estimate appears to differ from the public comments of Mr. Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Mr. Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.

But there have been ample signs in recent weeks that the security situation might be deteriorating:

Kidnappers seems to be growing more brazen. On Thursday, gunmen abducted two Americans and a Briton on Thursday in a brazen attack on a house in an upscale Baghdad neighborhood where many embassies and foreign companies are based. Two Italian women were abducted Sept. 7 by armed men from their offices in central Baghdad.

The number of Americans killed in Iraq passed the symbolic threshold of 1,000 this month, and now stand at 1,016. More than 800 have died since Mr. Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1, 2003, and more than 760 have died as a result of hostile action.

More than 200 U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq in the past week, the Pentagon said Tuesday, and the total since the invasion was launched in March 2003 is now 7,245.

The number of Iraqi security forces is at 95,000 ? far from the 200,000 U.S. officials had said were providing security as of March. Those forces have exhibited weaknesses during some clashes, including a high level of desertions during a surge of violence in April.

Numerous press reports have the estimated number of Iraq insurgent fighters rising from 5,000 to 20,000.

There are indications that diplomatic tension over the war has not eased. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a BBC interview that the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was "illegal" because it didn't have U.N. Security Council approval. European Union external affairs commissioner Chris Patten said Wednesday that, "American neo-conservative unilateralism had clearly failed to establish an empire of peace, liberty and democracy."

U.S. military commanders have acknowledged there are "no-go" areas controlled by insurgents that they are not prepared to retake until Iraqi forces are up and running, which may not be until December. Elections are due in January.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night.

The document was first reported by The New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night.

It is the first formal assessment of Iraq since the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed by fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

A scathing review of that estimate released this summer by the Senate Intelligence Committee found widespread intelligence failures that led to faulty assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Disclosure of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq came the same day that Senate Republicans and Democrats denounced the Mr. Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency.

"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee members vented their frustrations at a hearing during which State Department officials explained the administration's request to divert $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds to security and economic development. The money was part of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year, mostly for public works projects.

The request comes as heavy fighting continues between U.S.-led forces and Iraqi insurgents, endangering prospects for elections scheduled for January.

"We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ron Schlicher said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said circumstances in Iraq have changed since last year. "It's important that you have some flexibility."

Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members have long argued ? even before the war ? that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators.

But the criticism from the panel's top Republicans had an extra sting coming less than seven weeks before the U.S. presidential election in which Mr. Bush's handling of the war is a top issue.

"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration ? what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd' ? that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."

He said the need to shift the reconstruction funds was clear in July, but the administration was slow to make the request.

Before the war, Defense Department officials said the reconstruction of Iraq could be funded out of oil revenues. Civilian Pentagon leaders also disparaged then-Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki when he said several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure Iraq after the invasion.

State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs.

Looking for the dancing in the street fall of Saddam statue... Was so funny to see the small crowd during a zoom out of the cameraman....

dready · 09-16-2004, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
to get back on topic:

Looking for the dancing in the street fall of Saddam statue... Was so funny to see the small crowd during a zoom out of the cameraman....

Staged symbolism for the sheep to lap up back home.

Spin, Spin, and more spin coming soon.

theking · 09-16-2004, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
Here is again that part of the original post:

So with your logic, was I also implicating that the US killed 1000 US troops, or wounded 6000 US military ????

I didn't do that, but you tried to atrtribute that to me, to no avail.

Your non sensical counter...is to no avail. I did not imply anything...you made your own implication.

Quote:

[/B]So, basically, the US are fighting against the people they want to liberate .... This seems sort of odd. doesn'it ????

[/B]

There are an estimated low tens of thousands that are killing Americans...now killing more of their own people than Americans are. These fighters are foreign fighters...former Baathist party members (more than a few that if caught will have to stand trial)...fighters who are loyal to one or two Ayatolla's (who are trying to gain power for themselves not the country)...and undoubtedly some people that are either loyalists to Saddam/Iraq or have a hatred of Americans for whatever their individual reasons.

The number of insurgents are insignificant compared to the general population...which I understand is around 27 million. Except for a hand full of hot spots which represents a fraction of the country geographically...the general population are going about their daily business.

directfiesta · 09-16-2004, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Your non sensical counter...is to no avail. I did not imply anything...you made your own implication.

...the general population are going about their daily business.

lol...
I'm leaving you to your two friends : Mr. Bootle amd Miss Painkiller

CamChicks · 09-16-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scoobydookc

Why are the police out there warning prostitutes -- who are performing an illlegal act -- to 'be careful' while street walking, instead of arresting them? What was to gain by calling a crackhead hooker just someone who lived "a high risk lifestyle?" This is insane... someone help...

#1) Prostitution should not be illegal.
#2) Keeping them out there means the killer is less likely to pick up a female colledge student or someone the community feels is more valuable; and they can be used as bait, perhaps provide info. Getting a killer off the street is more important than getting a sexworker off the street.

09-16-2004, 04:59 PM	#2
eroswebmaster March 1st, 2003 Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seat 4 @ Venetian Poker Room Posts: 20,295	Spin baby spin...that's all these politicians know how to do...and fuckers lap it up like it's mama's milk. __________________ For rent - ICQ 127-027-910 Click here for more details

09-16-2004, 05:08 PM	#3
scoobydookc Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: kansas city Posts: 193	First I would like to say, I'm not going to vote either this election, or any election. So don't start the slamming of my views here.... Secondly, I CAN NOT WATCH ANY NEWS PROGRAMMING ANYMORE! This is exactly what's wrong with the NEWS in this country. This was reported by the AP.... Read this specific part: "Iraq is a daily theme of Bush's campaign speeches, often a springboard for attacking Democratic rival John Kerry. But Bush does not speak about the more than 1,000 U.S. deaths, the highly publicized kidnappings, executions and beheadings, or the dark scenarios outlined in the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate that was presented to him in late July." This should have been stopped right before the "BUT." Even the springboard into attacking Kerry could have been omitted. Why can't people just REPORT THE FACTS without throwing in their slant? Don't get me wrong, every one does it one way or another.... But someone explain this to me.... In Kansas City, they just caught a serial killer who killed 6 prostitutes in about 2 months. When they noticed it was being done by one person, the police went out and talked to the hookers "MAKE SURE YOU'RE BEING CAREFUL," and also asked questions as to whether they knew anything. They had a hidden camera showing these officers asking these women these things, ON THE STREET! The news then went on to interview one of the victim's sisters.... After the sobbing exclusive story, they then said she lived a "HIGH-RISK LIFESTYLE," she was a crackhead hooker. Why are the police out there warning prostitutes -- who are performing an illlegal act -- to 'be careful' while street walking, instead of arresting them? What was to gain by calling a crackhead hooker just someone who lived "a high risk lifestyle?" This is insane... someone help...

09-16-2004, 05:29 PM	#12
scoobydookc Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: kansas city Posts: 193	"Women rights are over" Aren't they allowed to go in public without the skimask or headwrap (whatever the fuck they call it) now? "30000 iraqi civilians dead" I want to see the source, if it starts with Alja... don't bother... "Religious extremist are talking control of cities. Iraq will probably be in a civil war wiithin the next year It will be divided in three different terrorist states ( Kurds in North, Shiites in South, Sunnis in the Triangle )." 2 out of the 3 were pontifications from your desk... The first I would like proof of.... "Saddam was controling Iraq, keeping it free of religious extremists and terrorists" It is a known fact, there are terrorist training grounds in Iraq. Maybe if you train them they will not bother you, maybe if you're LIKE them they won't bother you. The fact is the guy had torture chambers, raped, beat, cut limbs off and ripped tongues out of anyone who didn't agree with him. There ARE gigantic mass graves with THOUSANDS of people in them, he invaded a country nearby and tested WMD's in the late 80's early 90's on his OWN PEOPLE. We've merely taken this force away, now those people have freedom and don't know what the hell to do with it.

09-16-2004, 05:54 PM	#16
scoobydookc Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: kansas city Posts: 193	"Estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000 violent deaths since March 2003 " EXACTLY, it could be 10,000 to 30,000, you know somewhere in there.... Just like a weatherman saying Ivan will end up somewhere between Oregon and Maine... Now it's not Fox News, and I'll let you take your pick as to which source you want to hear it from, and some provide photographs. It was mentioned lightly when we were at war with them on one of the news networks, but still no follow up. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...salman+pak+707