A chronicle: Media question honesty of Bush administration

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Alistar7
they quoted the 12,000 page report Saddam submitted to the UN.

Is this the same report where Bush, et al, complained that Iraq had NOT been forthcoming in providing any information about NBC weapons? Which is it, Iraq did or did not provide this information?

The Times ran that pic without verifying it, they only fired him to save and immense lawsuits. They had been called into question by various media watchdogs before this, who also chide Rush for his wonderfull interpretation of "fact". I have to take anything that comes out of their editorial boardrrom with a grain of salt.

Unless this is a different photo, your statement is simply not true. If you have any links, please post and I'll be happy to admit we're talking about two different things.


Re. your other claims, with all due respect, you need to read more carefully. For example, you said:

Powelll claimed a member of Al-Queda was in Baghdad recieving medical care, his links came from Jordan and he was affiliated with a group that operated openly in western Baghdad. He is now in custody.

But, the article you linked says: "Sources said the individual is a member of a group operating in western Baghdad under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi." Note the difference - not Zarqawi himself, but a member of his group. The rest of the article is a reiteration of the earlier story re. Zarqawi. Finally, note the last paragraph of the article: " Administration officials say they do not know yet whether the newly captured individual -- as yet not named by U.S. officials -- had any connections with the government of Iraq."


You also said:

So far we have multiple admissions by surrendered Iraq scientists and Govt. figures that the stockpiles of WMD were destroyed only months before the war.

But the article said: ' "There were orders to destroy it," Dr. Hindawi said during interviews conducted today and on Friday. "They destroyed some - whether all or not, I can't say."' Note that there is no timeline associated with his comments, and he last worked in the Iraqi weapons programs "sporadically until the mid-1990's". His most significant involvement was in the 1980's. In other words, he is talking about materials that were destroyed in the mid-1990's at the latest, NOT months before as you claimed. This is confirmed by his subsequent comment that such materials would have decayed by now anyway, even if they weren't destroyed as ordered.

In summary, he is saying the same thing that our secret Iraqi defector told us: Yes, we had NBC weapons, but we were ordered to destroy them. Not quite the smoking gun that some people want to pretend it is.

You are thinking of a different person. The scientist who surrendered to US forces and led them to the buried precursor chemicals he himself could have produced WMD with told them they were destroyed just months before the war.

All you are trying to do is cloud the fatcs out of your hatred for Bush, too bad.
Funny nobody questions Blair's stronger, much more mocking tone when he says those who doubt wmd will be found will have to "Eat their words".

The report Saddam submitted was complete with one MAJOR exception, their current whereabouts. This is the area he was less than forthcoming. What is KNOWN to have been produced and is still unaccounted for was determined by this document, who knows how much there really was/is. I hope the reports coming from those that werw roking in the programs until almost the war started are true, they destroyed EVERYTHING.

Read a great article earlier today about how they altered an animal feed factory to be dual use for WMD productions, and still be able to pass the UN inspections.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ornery
Countless Iraqi civilians!

We lost more on 9-11 than Iraq lost in that war!

Assuming that's true (which it most likely will not be, as there were more civilians killed in the Afghanistan conflict than in 9/11 and I presume there will be more than that from this war, although there's no way to tell at the moment), that argument is a steaming pile of dung. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and if you think so you're just pulling the wool farther down, down, down. Please point me to some proof other than "Saddam and Osama met once" or "they both wanted to destroy the US" (don't forget that Rummy met with Saddam too...)

Hussein had over 10 years to get his sh|t together. He called our bluff and lost. Simple, no?

No, not simple. When you try to simplify a complex issue into two sentences, you're never going to get it right.

You left wing whiners are going to have to find something else to bitch about, because day by day it's becoming more and more apparent this action was long overdue. Just as apparent that the UN is as fvcking useless as a tit on a bull.

How exactly is it becoming apparent that this "action was long overdue"? Our justification for it, 1441, still has not been proven, as we have found no WMD to date. If anything, our international credibility is waning "day by day"

Which is why Russia, China, France and Germany all came calling kissing butt, Iran, Syria, and NK said yes master, and SA "suddenly" agrees to allow democratic reforms.

1441 was only a "last chance for FULL compliance", his noncompliance is well proven.
The links to AL-Queda have been laid out by powell, the camp was where he said it would be, it had recipes for WMD and dispersion manuals, the people who OPERATED that camp were based out of Jordan and WESTERN BAGHDAD, THEIR TOP operative was injured in Afghanistan in the war and came back to IRaq for medical treatment and protection. Saddam's best military hospuitals and doctors were given to this man, don't sit here and suggest he had no clue.

So we have not found the WMD, that doesn't mean the ones Saddam admitted having but could never account for just went poof into the sky, where are they then?

"Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad."

nice to know they got along so well, contrary to popular opinion...

"the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship... The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

You are thinking of a different person. The scientist who surrendered to US forces and led them to the buried precursor chemicals he himself could have produced WMD with told them they were destroyed just months before the war.

All you are trying to do is cloud the fatcs out of your hatred for Bush, too bad.
Funny nobody questions Blair's stronger, much more mocking tone when he says those who doubt wmd will be found will have to "Eat their words".

The report Saddam submitted was complete with one MAJOR exception, their current whereabouts. This is the area he was less than forthcoming. What is KNOWN to have been produced and is still unaccounted for was determined by this document, who knows how much there really was/is. I hope the reports coming from those that werw roking in the programs until almost the war started are true, they destroyed EVERYTHING.

Read a great article earlier today about how they altered an animal feed factory to be dual use for WMD productions, and still be able to pass the UN inspections.

Not sure how I can be thinking of a different person since I took the quote from the article you posted in this same thread. You misread the article, but you continue to spread misinformation that reinforces your opinions. Do you have the integrity to admit your were wrong or not?

Don't get your comment re. Blair. He is no more reputable than Bush with respect to the war.

Again, re. your claims about the Iraqi report, back it up with a link that supports you. Until you do, I'll assume you misread something else, or maybe just pulled it out of your ... NO CARRIER ...

 

[Vic]

Sometimes it's so hard to realize that you've been lied to. You want to trust the other person, you really do. Especially when it's an authority figure that you have supported in the past. No one wants to look the fool...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

Did I say that the end result isn't positive for the Iraqi people? I don't know if you've ever heard of a little book called THE PRINCE, or this interesting guy named Machiavelli, but all this "well as long as it's good now" business is eerily similar. And Machiavelli wasn't exactly a nice guy.

Do you think the people of Iraq would rather have president Bush or president Saddam?

You seem to have missed everything I said.

I did not miss anything. The implication you were making was quite clear.

I beg to differ; I hate Saddam just as much as the next guy is obligated to, and I am no less happy to see him gone than you are. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to feel mixed about an event. As stated a few posts above, there are many countries in the world that would do better without their current governments, but that doesn't give us free reign to change them as we see fit, and it especially does not give us free reign to make up evidence to do so (as it appears so far).

To quote President Bush from the 2000 campaign, "I will not use our military for nation-building," "I don't think it's our place to go around the world saying, 'this is the way we do it, and we're right, so you have to do it too'"

Oh, the irony of it all.

Oh the irony huh? Did you happen to want to quote the rest of that answer he(Bush) gave? Hmm seems to me that YOU are the one who is "missing" things. I'll go dig that debate transcript up again but there was a bit more to his quote that you convienently left out.

If I remember correctly(has been a couple weeks since I read it last) Bush even directly addresses the Iraq situation

CkG

 

[Athanasius]

Politics have always been a ruthless business. The United States made it official policy to seek regime change in Iraq back in 1998. Clinton knew Saddam needed to go. Bush, for many reasons, was simply more direct about it. See here for details:

Regime Change is the Goal

After 9/11 and ultimately useless UN doublespeak, the present administration simply accelerated its plans.

Since it was already committed to this course, it simply is seeking any justifiable means for supporting it. Some of those means will pan out, others will not.

Bottom line: for many reasons (some ethical, some not), the administration decided that the regime needed to go sooner rather than later. It presented those rationales that seemed more defensible, as Bill Clinton did when he bombed Miloslevic for 11 weeks (approximately) and brought about regime change there. Miloslevic was obviously no imminent threat to our national security.

Questioning Bush's honesty is fine. But I think enough evidence will be found about WMD to make that debate eternally unresolved.

Forget all of the talk and ask this question: was the U.S. wrong to remove Saddam? Was it wrong to remove Miloslevic?

When all is said and done, if your answers to those two questions are contradictory, then you might want to question your own objectivity. At that time, Were you for bombing Miloslevic but, at that time against removing Saddam? Or vice versa?

Politics will never change. It is in the end Machiavellian (as one poster pointed out) and utilitarian. In that sad arithmetic, high moral purpose is often compromised. That is why one should pray for world leaders: they are Machiavellian Fodder and don't even know it.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison
The only evidence missing at this point is WMD and that will turn up soon enough. AT this point I a month has not passed since the majority of the shooting has stopped and the US has several thousand places it wants to inspect. Scientest are coming forward for interviews about weapons development and documents are being found. It will require more than a month to determine if we were sold a bill of good on WMD.

Only time will tell. That's a pretty fallible argument though; dismissing any doubts with the assumption that WMD "will turn up."

However, the Iraqi links to terror groups seem undisputable at this point.

Care to elaborate?

 

[sandorski]

Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies--- the Anthem of the Bush Generation

Athanius is probably correct as to the real reason for this war, "Regime change". Even Bush Sr. wanted this, he just knew the complexity of the post-Saddam rebuilding. Simply put, the leadership vacuum without Saddam threatens the breakup of Iraq.

Charrison: Many Iraqi's would definitely choose Saddam over Bush, the vast majority would choose neither, I doubt any would choose Bush.

 

[Moonbeam]

Athanasius, There is a huge difference in destabilizing a government by helping it's citizens overthrow a dictator than killing them to set them free, no?. What is the moral obligation of a people whose leader is a killer? Didn't Clinton bomb to get rid of a leader up front and public. Is that different than killing by fraud as you seem to claim happened in Iraq? I can't accept praying for our leaders. I think they need to be exposed and held accountable. I'm rather right winged and old fashioned in that way.

 

[Corn]

I'm rather right winged and old fashioned in that way.

Its interesting that you say that, especially considering your own shameful acts of fraud and deciet at this forum. You don't hold yourself accountable, you didn't hold our former lying and decietful President Clinton accountable.......

Another fraud laced post from Moonie, but that's OK Moonie, your sig makes for a fine disclaimer in its excuse.......

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Corn

I'm rather right winged and old fashioned in that way.

Its interesting that you say that, especially considering your own shameful acts of fraud and deciet at this forum. You don't hold yourself accountable, you didn't hold our former lying and decietful President Clinton accountable.......

Another fraud laced post from Moonie, but that's OK Moonie, your sig makes for a fine disclaimer in its excuse.......

LOL, rich!

 

[Corn]

Athanasius, There is a huge difference in destabilizing a government by helping it's citizens overthrow a dictator than killing them to set them free, no?.

I see, your conscience is clear so long as the people we kill indirectly are starved to death over a sustained period of time instead of bombed.

Tell me Moonie, how would you "destabilize" a government without playing a direct role in arming its citizens to the point where a successful revolution is possible?

 

[Corn]

LOL, rich!

Quite right, and nearly as much so as that which it regarded.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.

I wonder how many tens of thousands of shallow graves they still have to find and uncover from the regime?

Again you use this pointless circular logic to justify the American offensive. Saddam kills people, so we can kill a few to make him not be able to kill people any more? Fallacy in its purest form.

Isnt this the same circular logic used in WWII? In virtually all wars? You kill masses, we kill your henchment and whomever unfortunate enought to be in harms way, to kill your ass, so you cant continue to kill many more masses. Seems to be the way it has worked since the first war.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies--- the Anthem of the Bush Generation

Athanius is probably correct as to the real reason for this war, "Regime change". Even Bush Sr. wanted this, he just knew the complexity of the post-Saddam rebuilding. Simply put, the leadership vacuum without Saddam threatens the breakup of Iraq.

Charrison: Many Iraqi's would definitely choose Saddam over Bush, the vast majority would choose neither, I doubt any would choose Bush.

Im glad they dont HAVE a choice of BUSH, we need him right here. Prepare yourself for another 5+ years of Bush.

 

[Moonbeam]

Corn: I see, your conscience is clear so long as the people we kill indirectly are starved to death over a sustained period of time instead of bombed.

Tell me Moonie, how would you "destabilize" a government without playing a direct role in arming its citizens to the point where a successful revolution is possible?
-------------------------------------------
I came to the conclusion that I had affected your mind, not for the better as I always hoped, but negatively. You seem to have become so bitter, so full of anger and hate. Naturally I know that's a manifestation of what's always been there. I'm no different, but it sees to be taking you in an unhealthy direction. I decided I would just ignore your rants but you had to go and ask a serious and intelligent question and a hard one, one that would take a lot of time, I think, to do real justice to. So let me cheat a bit and answer your question with a question. It will be just as effective if no matter what I say would have lead to further rant, and maybe illustrative of just how difficult that question is for me. My question answer:

Why didn't Christ build an army and put an end to suffering and injustice?

 

[Gaard]

Would our president have received as much support as he did if he hadn't mentioned WMDs at all in the weeks/months leading up to the war? If the the reason for this war had only been the liberation of the people would Blair and others have backed us like they did?

The answers to those questions may, or may not, be relevant to the title of this thread.

 

[Corn]

I came to the conclusion that I had affected your mind, not for the better as I always hoped, but negatively.

Well, within keeping with the "spirit" of your previous reply, I'll give you this to ponder: I once heard a preacher say "you reap what you sow".

Why didn't Christ build an army and put an end to suffering and injustice?

An interesting question indeed, however the answer can greatly vary depending upon one's faith that Christ was not a fictional character.

Assuming, though, that Christ did exist, one would see a pattern thoughout the bible that regarded the suffering of people to be a test of one's faith, or (if you'll pardon the pun) the rightful lot of the wicked.

I am not Christ, nor am I an ardent follower of his religion. I remember much from my upbringing with regard to the protestant faith, however I would hardly consider myself an expert on the subject.

I do know this though, while God's law puported to be "just", the laws of man are humane. I would be careful posing questions regarding what Christ did/didn't/would/wouldn't have done. Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt for simply looking back at Soddom and God flooded the world because of the "wickedness" of man.

He didn't need an army, and perhaps he simply saw the futility of a temporary end to wholesale evil that men do. That's no excuse, though, for us not to take out the trash when it starts to stink up the place.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison
The only evidence missing at this point is WMD and that will turn up soon enough. AT this point I a month has not passed since the majority of the shooting has stopped and the US has several thousand places it wants to inspect. Scientest are coming forward for interviews about weapons development and documents are being found. It will require more than a month to determine if we were sold a bill of good on WMD.

Only time will tell. That's a pretty fallible argument though; dismissing any doubts with the assumption that WMD "will turn up."

Only time will tell. That's a pretty fallible argument though; dismissing any doubts with the assumption that WMD "wont turn up."

I am sure if the WMD do turn, you will be the first to claim they were planted by the admin....

However, the Iraqi links to terror groups seem undisputable at this point.

Care to elaborate?[/quote]

Couple of AL queda camps in northern iraq taken out.
Couple of wanted internation terrorist in custody
Documents about Al Quedia /Iraqi goverment meetings.
Payments for palastenian suicide bombers
Hundreds of suicide bomb vests discovered

But I know none of this will convince you.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies--- the Anthem of the Bush Generation

Athanius is probably correct as to the real reason for this war, "Regime change". Even Bush Sr. wanted this, he just knew the complexity of the post-Saddam rebuilding. Simply put, the leadership vacuum without Saddam threatens the breakup of Iraq.

Charrison: Many Iraqi's would definitely choose Saddam over Bush, the vast majority would choose neither, I doubt any would choose Bush.

I had no idea you were so in tune with the wants of the iraq people. Do happen to have any data to back this claim up?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies--- the Anthem of the Bush Generation

Athanius is probably correct as to the real reason for this war, "Regime change". Even Bush Sr. wanted this, he just knew the complexity of the post-Saddam rebuilding. Simply put, the leadership vacuum without Saddam threatens the breakup of Iraq.

Charrison: Many Iraqi's would definitely choose Saddam over Bush, the vast majority would choose neither, I doubt any would choose Bush.

Im glad they dont HAVE a choice of BUSH, we need him right here. Prepare yourself for another 5+ years of Bush.

[RANT]
Need him for what? To finish destroying the economy? To cover up more corporate scandals? To make sure we don't get our civil liberties back? To give more sweetheart contracts and tax handouts to his rich buddies? My God, how much Bush-whacking do you think this country can endure?
[/RANT]
There, I feel better.

But seriously, what is it you Bush supporters see in the man? I can understand support for the war; many Americans look the other way in times of war, ignoring our government's foibles. Now that the war is largely over, it's time to face reality.

Bush has never accomplished anything in his life; everything has been handed to him. He is not terribly bright - to put it mildly. He is an unashamed liar. He is an alcoholic and a former drug user. He is arrogant, hypocritical, and contemptuous of the unwashed masses he allegedly represents. He is readily manipulated by the un-elected and often anonymous people lurking in the background behind him. Though he was elected to represent us and he spends our money, he seems to think we have no right to know anything that goes on in and around his administration. He has set back openness in government by decades.

So what is his attraction? You would raise holy hell about a Democrat with any one of these flaws. Look at Clinton. He lied about sex - just like everyone else - and you crucified him. Why don't you hold Bush to the same standard? Why don't you hold Bush to any standard? Are you so partisan that nothing else matters, so blinded by petty politics that you'd vote for Saddam himself if he ran on a Republican plank?

I know this is a rant, but I really, truly do not understand what so many people see in Bush. A lot of other Americans are equally mystified. I would honestly appreciate anyone's thoughts.

(One warning, if you try to justify support for Bush based on Republican vs. Democrat arguments, you won't get very far with me. I think the differences between the two parties are more imaginary than real. Both parties treat the federal treasury as a Horn of Plenty for their major contributors. Both sell out individual citizens in favor of corporate interests more often than not. Neither is really interested in campaign finance reform. Neither truly attempts to reduce the size of government; they just try to bloat it in different areas. There are a few litmus issues like abortion that differentiate the parties, but most of them aren't going anywhere anyway, so their practical impact is limited. I learned a long time ago that you have to pick candidates on an individual basis, and even then, it's usually a choice between awful and worse.)

Thoughts?

 

[Moonbeam]

I have no problem with reaping what you sow, so long as I'm not doing the calculation. Same thing with the trash, no? Taking it out's all well and good. Do we shoot a neighbor who isn't? I, like you, have all the answers. That's why I'm very careful never, almost never, to apply them.

The futility of a temporary fix is perhaps correct, but in a direction otherwise, I think, than what you seem to imply. I think a deep understanding of the source of the problem leads to non rational and non linear solutions, solutions beyond the range of the normal. It's a paradox that I think resolves in a higher order understanding. In order to attempt an explanation for something that is essentially transcendental to language and always involves some sort of finger pointing at the moon and always degenerating into a debate about who got the finger, I hope to avoid it. Jesus got a big thanks too. The stuff always good in my garden, but I don't want anybody pulling a muscle throwing anything. If you're serious about it though, I spose I could. Got an invite for sushi though. Got to go. If Athanasius comes back maybe he's care to comment. He's much more cogent than I. Later.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: sandorski
Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies--- the Anthem of the Bush Generation

Athanius is probably correct as to the real reason for this war, "Regime change". Even Bush Sr. wanted this, he just knew the complexity of the post-Saddam rebuilding. Simply put, the leadership vacuum without Saddam threatens the breakup of Iraq.

Charrison: Many Iraqi's would definitely choose Saddam over Bush, the vast majority would choose neither, I doubt any would choose Bush.

Im glad they dont HAVE a choice of BUSH, we need him right here. Prepare yourself for another 5+ years of Bush.

[RANT]
Need him for what? To finish destroying the economy? To cover up more corporate scandals? To make sure we don't get our civil liberties back? To give more sweetheart contracts and tax handouts to his rich buddies? My God, how much Bush-whacking do you think this country can endure?
[/RANT]
There, I feel better.

But seriously, what is it you Bush supporters see in the man? I can understand support for the war; many Americans look the other way in times of war, ignoring our government's foibles. Now that the war is largely over, it's time to face reality.

Bush has never accomplished anything in his life; everything has been handed to him. He is not terribly bright - to put it mildly. He is an unashamed liar. He is an alcoholic and a former drug user. He is arrogant, hypocritical, and contemptuous of the unwashed masses he allegedly represents. He is readily manipulated by the un-elected and often anonymous people lurking in the background behind him. Though he was elected to represent us and he spends our money, he seems to think we have no right to know anything that goes on in and around his administration. He has set back openness in government by decades.

So what is his attraction? You would raise holy hell about a Democrat with any one of these flaws. Look at Clinton. He lied about sex - just like everyone else - and you crucified him. Why don't you hold Bush to the same standard? Why don't you hold Bush to any standard? Are you so partisan that nothing else matters, so blinded by petty politics that you'd vote for Saddam himself if he ran on a Republican plank?

I know this is a rant, but I really, truly do not understand what so many people see in Bush. A lot of other Americans are equally mystified. I would honestly appreciate anyone's thoughts.

(One warning, if you try to justify support for Bush based on Republican vs. Democrat arguments, you won't get very far with me. I think the differences between the two parties are more imaginary than real. Both parties treat the federal treasury as a Horn of Plenty for their major contributors. Both sell out individual citizens in favor of corporate interests more often than not. Neither is really interested in campaign finance reform. Neither truly attempts to reduce the size of government; they just try to bloat it in different areas. There are a few litmus issues like abortion that differentiate the parties, but most of them aren't going anywhere anyway, so their practical impact is limited. I learned a long time ago that you have to pick candidates on an individual basis, and even then, it's usually a choice between awful and worse.)

Thoughts?

Bush hasnt accomplished ANYTHING in his life? Man you better tune in to the real world before you get left out. And he nor you nor I have to account for everything we have done since birth. He is the President and is accountable for what he does NOW.

Like I said in an earlier thread, the only reason Bush SR didnt do a second term was due to Perot, and there will be NO Perot to take it from him this time. The only thing he can do to cause failure next time around is fail to out smart the liberal press or do shoot himself in the foot. As of now his unbeatable because the dems spent way too much time on the wrong side of the fence before the war, all of them stepping on thier dicks, and yes even Hillary stepped on HER DICK!

If the Liberals had kept thier whining asses shut till the war was over they may have made some ground but now all they can do is make fools of themselves defending thier positions that sent thier futures to hell. All they have left is the moanings of what anyone can find posted on any third world publication.. distortions and lies. Talk about Bush lieing? Look at the hoards bearing false witness to get thier foot in the door without removing the dog poop from thier soles first!

Surely I am exaggerating here and not EVERYONE is guilty, but this is just a tiny taste of the blather that the liberals spew out about the administration... it tastes no better is no less true.

Official Policy of Liberals in USA.... If it looks like poop and smells like poop, stir it up!!

Official Policy of Conservatives in USA... If it looks like poop and smells like poop, flush it!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Bush hasnt accomplished ANYTHING in his life? Man you better tune in to the real world before you get left out. And he nor you nor I have to account for everything we have done since birth. He is the President and is accountable for what he does NOW.

Like I said in an earlier thread, the only reason Bush SR didnt do a second term was due to Perot, and there will be NO Perot to take it from him this time. The only thing he can do to cause failure next time around is fail to out smart the liberal press or do shoot himself in the foot. As of now his unbeatable because the dems spent way too much time on the wrong side of the fence before the war, all of them stepping on thier dicks, and yes even Hillary stepped on HER DICK!

If the Liberals had kept thier whining asses shut till the war was over they may have made some ground but now all they can do is make fools of themselves defending thier positions that sent thier futures to hell. All they have left is the moanings of what anyone can find posted on any third world publication.. distortions and lies. Talk about Bush lieing? Look at the hoards bearing false witness to get thier foot in the door without removing the dog poop from thier soles first!

Surely I am exaggerating here and not EVERYONE is guilty, but this is just a tiny taste of the blather that the liberals spew out about the administration... it tastes no better is no less true.

Official Policy of Liberals in USA.... If it looks like poop and smells like poop, stir it up!!

Official Policy of Conservatives in USA... If it looks like poop and smells like poop, flush it!

Flush!

(Does that make me a conservative?)

Well, that was an interesting spew. No content, and you didn't answer one of my questions, but I hope you feel better.

Two points. First, don't count your chickens. For all the reasons I mentioned, Bush is vulnerable. Without the war to distract us, Bush is going to have to start accounting for his performance. His performance stinks. Unless he launches another war or we have another 9/11 soon, Bush is going to find that the honeymoon is ending. As I pointed out in the three articles that started this thread, the press is starting to speak up. Even many Bush supporters acknowledge that he's not very bright and he plays loose with the truth. Those aren't the best credentials for the most powerful job in the world.

Second, you scoffed when I said Bush had never accomplished anything. OK, I'll bite. Give me a few examples of what he has accomplished - without handouts from daddy and his friends.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.

I wonder how many tens of thousands of shallow graves they still have to find and uncover from the regime?

how many Hussein did and would have killed is NOT relevant to this argument. the question is, how much responsibility will we bear for the iraqis WE killed. to try and excuse it by claiming that hussein would have killed people also.

you have to remember that what happened here is that we OVERTHREW a regime. a legitimate government of the people of iraq. That's a huge thing and it shouldn't be trivialized by saying it's ok because he was killing his own people.

I still believe we did what was right, but i'm not willing to trivialize the deaths of people (US and Iraqi, Soldiers and Civilians).