This will be the last Ford product I purchase. Had a 1992 Ford Tempo and was happy with the life cycle cost and reliability and it encouraged me to buy another Ford so I purchased the 1998 Windstar and this van requires a lot of front end work.....yearly. It's not built to sustain our roads here in Canada. Feel better now! Happily divorced from Ford. Was previously a GM guy and divorced it too! I'm through with being an American car enthusiast.......I tried for 20 years. Good bye alt.autos.ford
Why not? It looks like the people in France were right: No WMD have yet to be found. And the only known connection between Iraq and 9/11 is Bush's imagination.
Besides, one of the things Americans fought for in France and the rest of Europe was freedom of thought. I support the right of French people to have a different opinion to mine (although mine is usually right) or that of our non-really elected President.
(Did it ever occur to you that it was odd the people who Bush's brother appointed and who report to his brother found in favor of Bush in the recount? Or that Republicans were caught counting ballots with two votes in favor of Bush in Jackson Count, FL. Or that the Republicans prevented many blacks from voting in the election (blacks tend to vote for the better candidate -- the Democrat)?)
Jeff, A proud Democrat and person ashamed of the US's role in Iraq
You are entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts. In the first instance France, Germany and Russia each agreed with the rest of the UN members that Iraq had WMD and was required under the 14 UN resolutions to dispose of them. The only difference of opinion was they were in favor or waiting even longer to determine where the WMD were. that Iraq listed that they had as part of the first Gulf War cease fire agreement. The fact they have yet to be found only adds to the mystery of what happened to them after the cease fire was signed..
The election board in black counties like Broward tend to be black and not Republicans. The person that certified the vote was indeed a Republican but the vote officials involved in the recounts were Democrats, as were the majority of Justices of the Florida Supreme Court that ruled that partial recount were permissible. The Florida court reversed itself and agreed with the US Supreme Court after is was informed by the US Supreme Court that its partial recount ruling was in violation of Florida election laws.
In addition after the election several national newspapers syndicates did individual recounts of the ballots after the Florida election in 2000. Each found that Bush indeed won the election in fact they discover he won by more votes than recorded in the official total because Mr. Gore was credited with several hundred more vote than he actually received.
I don't intend to debate, facts are not debatable. The fact on both subjects are readily available to any fair-minded person willing to do a search.
Gee, we have been in Iraq for over a year now. And no WMD. Looks like they didn't have them. And nothing to link Bush and 9/11 either. Gee, just the facts, sir.
Another interesting fact: Gov Bush of Texas signed into a law allowing for a full state recount for things like this. Funny how he didn't ask for one in this case.
Try again. Gore only won two of the media recounts: the recounts of the absentee ballots and the total recount including all ballots recounted. It is the total recount that would be most important. In other words, the best evidence indicates had there been a total recount, Gore would have won.
formatting link
And that doesn't include the votes of the voters (mostly black) who were disqualified because a company falsely said they were excons.
See, like in Kevin Phillips's _American_Dynasty_ where you can read more about the election that was run by Gov. Bush's appointees, where many counties didn't let blacks vote, and where Jackson County counted about 300 overvotes (mostly for Bush) by covering up one of the votes.
The facts were not reported by the media and the public did not pay much attention because there were other things happing that week (the week of
Absolutely. He does not come from oil money or have a family history of dealing with Germany before WWII (e.g., his family members were not on the board of any German banks in the US) and he does not haved a history of hiding stuff, like the members of his energy advisory committee. Nor did his freinds in private industry make a ton of money off the war, like Cheney's friends do at Haliburton.
Irrelevent. Gore is far smarter than Bush. He just didn't have oil money and industry money to back him up. Or his brother and the Republican machinery in Florida to steal the election.
If Iraq had no WMD then it was a grave mistake on their part to not allow the UN inspectors to do the job they were assigned. Iraq knew for quite some time that we were coming, they could have easily moved or hidden whatever they had. If Clinton hadn't been so busy chasing pussy, Iraq could have been dealt with a long time ago with much less cost both in dollars and lives. Bob
Yes, it was. But that mistake does not justify Bush going into Iraq to secure their oil.
The US Army has been in Iraq for quite some time and uses unethical and illegal tactics to get information from its prisoners. One would think that if WMD were there, they would have been found.
Bush is just finishing up his Daddy's unfiinished business. And the the US said to Iraq that it is OK to go into Kuwait in the first place. Bush I and Bush II were just doing their oil business work using the US Gov't. The Bushes are great at Krony politics. Too bad thousands of people are dying because of it.
What was there to control? Saddam didn't have WMD, Saddam wasn't sending people out looking for nuclear bombs, and we had no business in Iraq. Iraq was a soviern country.
One of the reason why Bush went into Iraq so fast is that he had a flimsy excuse to go that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. And it didn't. The report about getting nuclear arms was based on poor intelligence. And no WMD have been found.
Is this the best you can do? Or is Krony politics ok? Haliburton has billions of contracts for Cheney and Bush and Bush oil friends in Texas are making billions more from gas sales. And Cheney wouldn't tell us who were his advisors for his energy policy meeting.
"Jeff" wrote in message news:c9anin$ snipped-for-privacy@library1.airnews.net...
Jeff,
Here are quotes from Clinton and every other democrat I could fine in a 2 minute search on google regarding Saddma's WMD) I guess GW Bush had you all hoodwinked into beleiveing their were WMD's way back in 1998........ 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 Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.
"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. His remarks followed that briefing.
"Iraq is a long way from USA 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 This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.
"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-Truth! This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright. "We 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 Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth! According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
"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-Truth! The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website. "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-Truth! This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago. She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace 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, December 5, 2001Truth! The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman. It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq. "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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth! These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth! This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.
"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-Truth! "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-Truth! Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.
"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-Truth! On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq. He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point. "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-Truth! Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein. "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 Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein. "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 Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war. "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 Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.
"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 In a speech to Georgetown University. Last updated 4/16/04
No WMD's? The Sarin GAs in the roadside bomb discovered this month had enough sarin to kill at least as many people that died on 911. Nope that doesn't count I guess. Brad
How quickly they can forget, in an election year. What is more amazing is the number of people that actually believe what guys like Kennedy ital. are now saying, even when given the facts. Lies, war for oil, avenge daddy's assignation attempt. If it were not so important to get out the truth it would be laughable.
The truth is not one of the things the Bush adminstration is good at telling. It is family tradition, dating back to before World War II when the family had ties to Nazi Germany.
And facts is not one of the things the bush adminstration is good at getting either. They stack all of the scientific committees that Bush appoints with people who share is point of view. So much for truth finding. Bush's fundamentalism is driving his decisions, so that instead of seeking the truth, he already thingks he knows it.
You might want to look at the facts of the last election in Florida.
Like No millionaire left behind act? Oopsie, that is Bush. His no child left behind act is underfunded. Kids are left behind all the time. How about tax cuts to help the rich? Oopsie, Bush too. How about helping his friends in the oil and military industries. Oopsie, Bush too.
I bought it used in 1998, it had 20,000Km and now has 90,000Km. It still had
2 year warranty and all maintenance and recalls were done at dealer and I knew the previous owner who added a remote start and door un-lock, she took good care of car, she just had to break her lease and it ended up being a good deal. There must be something wrong with this cars front end or our roads here or both. I just had 3 front end jobs in the last 4 years and in my books this has become a trend and I'm reluctant to support what seems to be a design flaw mainly the sway bar and tie-rods.
Please keep politics out of this....there must be other news groups that accommodate expressing political frustrations......the we all experience in varying degrees.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.