Bush IS leading us into a quagmire....

[glenn1]

.... of conspiracy theories, endless rants from the left, and Monday morning quarterback articles about how the genius author would have done things so much better than the Bush team would have. I don't think i've ever seen an otherwise intelligent and rational bunch of people lose their collective minds over the fate of an asshole like Saddam Hussein before.

 

[Martin]

Quagmire

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Quagmire

What did Stewie have to say about the war in Iraq? A: "For God's sake, Mr. Bush, if you're going to lie to the entire country, at least make it sound plausible. I mean, Iraq with weapons of mass destruction? It's practically a third world country, you imbecile! They're lucky if they can make Shrinky Dinks! Now, if you'd really wanted to get this nation of piddling morons on your side, you should've told them Saddam Hussein is actually just Gallagher in a beret."

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: glenn1
.... of conspiracy theories, endless rants from the left, and Monday morning quarterback articles about how the genius author would have done things so much better than the Bush team would have. I don't think i've ever seen an otherwise intelligent and rational bunch of people lose their collective minds over the fate of an asshole like Saddam Hussein before.

If you think it's bad now, wait until after election day, November, 2004.

Place your bets. Place your bets. Taking bets on the following predicted quotes after election day:

"Teh American people gotta be the stupidist people who evar lived."

"Help! We've been overrun by Fundies and Neo-cons!"

"What did I tell you? Those hick bearded Confederate flag wavers wouldn't vote for Dean."

"Let us abolish or bomb rural America tomorrow at teh very earliest."

"Israel, China, Saudi Arabia and Nazi Germany bought and paid for this election."

"Teh voting machines were rigged!"

(Nevermind that at least three of the above quotes will be made by people who didn't "bother" to vote)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It isnt about Saddam. It is about how my president either lied or was incompetent. Frankly, if Saddam is pushing up daisies, I wont shed a tear. On the other hand, whatever credibility was left after Clinton evaporated once Bush started to make definitive statements on WMDs in Iraq. We wound up having shifting justifications and the man still apparently has no clue as to what is really happening with terrorism and old Osama Bin Forgotten.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: glenn1
.... of conspiracy theories, endless rants from the left, and Monday morning quarterback articles about how the genius author would have done things so much better than the Bush team would have. I don't think i've ever seen an otherwise intelligent and rational bunch of people lose their collective minds over the fate of an asshole like Saddam Hussein before.

I don't think I've ever seen an otherwise intelligent and rational bunch of people equate strong, harsh criticism of our President to being in support of an asshole like Saddam Hussein...

 

[LunarRay]

Winston,
Some day we'll find OBL dead and we'll be told 'see we scared him to death' and 'these things take time'. Bush said. 'the object is to win the war'. I say, the object is to avoid a war. But, if we must war let it be on the truth of the matter not a lie to further some agenda. We ignored Saddam and all his bad deeds while giving him credits to purchase our goods in the '80s and then the other nations did the same in the '90s and we call our actions noble. Bull pucky!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

It isnt about Saddam. It is about how my president either lied or was incompetent.

Sadly, people just don't seem tp understand this. If you raise an eyebrow and think, "Waitaminit, Things just don't jibe here" you are automatically labeled a 'Saddam apologist'. Like I said in another thread, there is an overwhelming amount of people who think that because good came of this war nobody should question the reasons we were given.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

It isnt about Saddam. It is about how my president either lied or was incompetent.

Sadly, people just don't seem tp understand this. If you raise an eyebrow and think, "Waitaminit, Things just don't jibe here" you are automatically labeled a 'Saddam apologist'. Like I said in another thread, there is an overwhelming amount of people who think that because good came of this war nobody should question the reasons we were given.

You get labaled a Saddam apologist when you take the word of this person who has been deceiving and generally not cooperating with UN mandate. It is ok to question the motives of the president(even if world intellifence agencies and previous administration had same opinion), but it is foolish to beleive Saddam was going to cooperate at the last minute.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

It isnt about Saddam. It is about how my president either lied or was incompetent.

Sadly, people just don't seem tp understand this. If you raise an eyebrow and think, "Waitaminit, Things just don't jibe here" you are automatically labeled a 'Saddam apologist'. Like I said in another thread, there is an overwhelming amount of people who think that because good came of this war nobody should question the reasons we were given.

You get labaled a Saddam apologist when you take the word of this person who has been deceiving and generally not cooperating with UN mandate. It is ok to question the motives of the president(even if world intellifence agencies and previous administration had same opinion), but it is foolish to beleive Saddam was going to cooperate at the last minute.

I believe you charrison. To be more specific, I believe you don't label someone a Saddam apologist unless they take his word over bush's. (BTW, when or where or who has this ever happened?).

Unfortunately, however, not everbody adheres to your definition of a Saddam apologist. It's not correct for you to state "You get labeled...". Instead, it would be more accurate for you to say "I don't label anyone a Saddam apologist unless...".

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

It isnt about Saddam. It is about how my president either lied or was incompetent.

Sadly, people just don't seem tp understand this. If you raise an eyebrow and think, "Waitaminit, Things just don't jibe here" you are automatically labeled a 'Saddam apologist'. Like I said in another thread, there is an overwhelming amount of people who think that because good came of this war nobody should question the reasons we were given.

You get labaled a Saddam apologist when you take the word of this person who has been deceiving and generally not cooperating with UN mandate. It is ok to question the motives of the president(even if world intellifence agencies and previous administration had same opinion), but it is foolish to beleive Saddam was going to cooperate at the last minute.

I believe you charrison. To be more specific, I believe you don't label someone a Saddam apologist unless they take his word over bush's. (BTW, when or where or who has this ever happened?).

[/i].

There were many willing to believe that saddam was telling the truth and was fully cooperating before the war, because they wanted to avoid the war at all costs. The Kay report showed that Iraq continued to do research and hide programs from the UN, and the Kay report at this point also has shown that the various intelligence agencys around the world had quite a few things wrong about Iraq capabilities.

 

[Corn]

If you think it's bad now, wait until after election day, November, 2004.

Place your bets. Place your bets. Taking bets on the following predicted quotes after election day:

I'm sure my favorite will be:

Should California secede?

 

[Corn]

I don't think I've ever seen an otherwise intelligent and rational bunch of people equate strong, harsh criticism of our President to being in support of an asshole like Saddam Hussein...

Well then you haven't red many of phillyTIM's posts on that particular subject.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Corn

I don't think I've ever seen an otherwise intelligent and rational bunch of people equate strong, harsh criticism of our President to being in support of an asshole like Saddam Hussein...

Well then you haven't red many of phillyTIM's posts on that particular subject.

Your blind partisanship isn't allowing you to comprehend my statement I'm afraid.

So let's say that kid once said "I love Saddam and support him!", just for the sake of argument. That still is no excuse to equate strong and harsh criticism of the President to being pro-Saddam. One cannot logically make that implication. Comprende?

Its a lesson in basic logic. Let's call (A) "I can't stand the foreign policy, especially in Iraq, of President Bush". Let's call (B) "I support Saddam". Does A imply B, thus equating the two? Of course not. Thus its irrational, and just plain dangerous to make that connection.

I finish my discourse with a statement from Hermann Goering, the Third Reich's number 2 man, on the eve of his Nuremberg Trial:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: glenn1
.... of conspiracy theories, endless rants from the left, and Monday morning quarterback articles about how the genius author would have done things so much better than the Bush team would have.

Maybe things would be so much better if Bush would have listened to the Monday morning quarterbacks at the State Department and their recommendations about post war Iraq. You know, since this advice is after all coming from a studies funded and conducted by his own administration. But thier insight didn't jive with the neo-con wet dream fantasy that everything would be peachy after we invade Iraq, so it was ignored.

 

[Red Dawn]

Rummy trying to execute this occupation on the cheap and undemanned has put our soldiers at greater risk.

 

[chess9]

Jshawkin:

The Bush Administration knew going in that all their public justifications for the war were lies. This isn't about monday morning quarterbacking but venality at the highest levels of government.

It's also about the stupidity of guys like Gebhart who is so offended by details that he doesn't even know the minimum wage. How could we expect someone like that to read the footnotes in a CIA briefing book? Ditto for Kerry and Edwards. Lieberman is the only hawk who probably had the intelligence and zeal to read the briefing book. Unfortunately, he reached the wrong conclusion. But, I give him kudos for his hard work, consistency, and character. Only Byrd, Graham, and Dean were/are right.

Get out of Iraq now!

-Robert

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: charrison
There were many willing to believe that saddam was telling the truth and was fully cooperating before the war, because they wanted to avoid the war at all costs. The Kay report showed that Iraq continued to do research and hide programs from the UN, and the Kay report at this point also has shown that the various intelligence agencys around the world had quite a few things wrong about Iraq capabilities.

It wasn't people just believing what saddam said, though, was it? It was people believing what the UN said, and what other countries said. And until we actually find some proof, who are we to believe either way?

(for the record, from what i've read of the Kay report it seems like the most reasonable analysis so far, and I personally think that the iraq war was justifiable, but I certainly think that it was reasonable before the war for people to doubt it.)

 

[LunarRay]

I didn't see a thread regading what I heard on the news last night. This thread seems to fit the bill nicely.

I heard that before the war Iraq tried many times to induce the US to come validate the claims that there were no WMD in Iraq. Even 11th hour dialog to avoid war with the US via communication with the CIA who, it was reported, didn't want to hear it. I heard it but, have yet to see a site that has it - didn't look too hard though..

This means that we knew they wanted to avoid war and wanted us to come see the non-existent WMD... IF true this is a smoking gun!