I suppose that includes the facts stated in the Slate post too?
You're just too ridiculous for words. But whenver I need a good laugh your posts are always there.
Like Harvey said, you're all mouth. And I'll add toothless as well.
I suppose that includes the facts stated in the Slate post too?
You're just too ridiculous for words. But whenver I need a good laugh your posts are always there.
Like Harvey said, you're all mouth. And I'll add toothless as well.
Ain't that the truth.
I wonder if he's another of the many right wing members who are from the Washington DC area. :roll:
Or maybe he's just another Republican Team Leader doing it for free.
After all, this administration has been cited by the GAO for using taxpayer dollars to pay for propaganda on several occassions.
When you can't refute the facts just ignore them and have one of your butt buddies post lol.
:roll:
Bush rewrote history several times in the run up to his unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and now, after his failure to prepare for anything other than being greeted with flowers, he's rewriting it again. All to cover his a$$ because his poll numbers are tanking so low that they're frightening even his most staunch political allies.
But not his mindless enablers here. :roll:
OF COURSE!! WHY HAVE YOU KEPT YOUR SILENCE FOR SO LONG!? GAME OVER!! Why didn't you tell someone before now that there weren't any WMDs over there? You could have saved us lives and alot of money! Wait..what? You mean you DIDN"T know there were no WMDs over there before we verified it? But...but you just used the "revelation" that we didn't find any stockpiles of WMDs over there as a response to my reasoning that... THEY WERE THERE...SADDAM USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE...HELLO? IS ANY OF THIS SINKING IN YET?...THEN HE REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH MANY UN RESOLUTIONS...AND FAILED TO COME CLEAN ABOUT WHAT HE DID HAVE...ARE YOU ABLE TO CONNECT DOTS HERE?....I mean come on man, just admit that your hatred for "your leader" has blinded you to see what the majority of the intelligence community, foreign and domestic, saw. And that is the FACT that they were there and the FACT that he refused to account for their whereabouts, as required. PERIOD. THAT ALONE IS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO GO TO WAR. He left us with no choice but to confirm that they were or were not there. After 9-11 how could we afford even the possibility that any WMD might get into the wrong hands? Is that scenario really so hard to grasp? I mean be honest here for once.
Its a good thing that people who think like you do aren't in charge of anything important. Thats okay though we took care of the tough decsions for you. I understand your anger.
Anyway here are some interesting tidbits in response to your weak points...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05310/60...w.post-gazette.com/pg/05310/600991.stm
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2004/01/30/10593.html
Why would I address a piece of chit like that? I like to either do one liners or post real stuff.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
HAHAHA iraq weapons COULD have been moved BEFORE the WAR!?! and I thought the liberals had the market cornered on tinfoil caps...looks like some of you Rightwingers managed to outfit yourselves too!!
yeah suure we got them all WMDs settled up right in the middle of downtown hicksville out in South Dakota!! c'mon and take a looksey.
puulease.
Originally posted by: OrByte
HAHAHA iraq weapons COULD have been moved BEFORE the WAR!?! and I thought the liberals had the market cornered on tinfoil caps...looks like some of you Rightwingers managed to outfit yourselves too!!
yeah suure we got them all WMDs settled up right in the middle of downtown hicksville out in South Dakota!! c'mon and take a looksey.
puulease.
Brilliant response! What do you provide for your proof that they were not moved?
I mean everyone agrees that they were there and Saddam provided no account of what happened to them. So what is your account of what happened? This should be good, I can't wait to hear this. Since they WERE THERE and now they're not, please display your brillaint, common sense mind again for us and tell us what happened to them.
While we're on the edge of our seats waiting for you to display your great analytical mind, here is a little piece that people tend to forget about...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/14/233507.shtml
But hey don't let any facts get in your way, its understandable how frustrating it must be to only have sarcasm to back your points up. So by all means please continue entertaining us with your proven skills at.....um....using words to belittle people that don't agree with you. You must be a lot of fun at parties. Congratulations!
lanche,
please... plase.. no newsmax, makes fox look like a rabit leftist site
and the wmd's you speak of were destroyed by the IAEA after the first gulf war, after that they were just making sure no new were being developed yet some thought something was there which wasnt there and wanted Iraq to proove they didnt have what they didnt have by showing them they had it. Insane argument
please... plase.. no newsmax, makes fox look like a rabit leftist site
and the wmd's you speak of were destroyed by the IAEA after the first gulf war, after that they were just making sure no new were being developed yet some thought something was there which wasnt there and wanted Iraq to proove they didnt have what they didnt have by showing them they had it. Insane argument
Surprise, surprise. You can't refute the facts in the story so you slam the source. I guess thats expected when the facts don't match your stance. I mean are you suggesting that NEWSMAX lied about the transcript of what Powell played for the UN Council? Is that what you're saying MR. Fung? If not then what is your point? Right or left what is the difference if it is a matter of public record. Oh...nevermind I forgot you don't have use for facts.
Saddam was required to account for his entire arsenal and/or destruction of such. Yes, it would appear to be the case that we were wrong about "stockpiles" of WMDs but there were multiple reports by David Kay and others that clearly described Saddam's efforts to conceal items that were in direct violation of UN restrictions for Iraq.
Saddam's actions and postering and Saddam's own report, that his team produced to try to meet clear UN resolution directives, was incomplete and deceptive. Based on those facts we had legal right and no choice, for our own safety, to confirm one way or the other what he was doing or planning. Regardless of what was or was not eventually found. The bottom line is that Saddam was clearly not forthcoming on what he had or didn't have. Some have even said that Saddam was clueless to what his scientists and generals were up to. That they would tell him they needed more money for weapons but really were pocketing the money for their own personal gain. Either way we HAD TO CONFIRM.
I have heard the arguement that - "Well the inspections were working on keeping Saddam honest, so there was no need for war". You mean the "UN Inspectors", yes thats comforting. The UN is surely an honest group of countries that totally supports the US, right? So lets just leave our national security in their hands.
I mean other than that little UN Oil for Food corruption deal the UN is a straight shooter, right? We had nothing to worry about, right? They were just as determined to locate those WMDs as we were, weren't they? I'm sure.
I am more comfortable now with our decision to remove Saddam than I was before that scandal was apparent. Do you really believe that leaving Saddam in power was the best route for the US? Especailly knowing how many countries were supporting Saddam's efforts through the Oil for Food scandal. Do you think the UN wants the US as the only superpower? Hell no, of course not. They were doing all that they could get away with and some things that they couldn't to help any enemy of the US. In this case it was Iraq.
Bottom line - There will always be a country "on top", its just a fact of life. There will always be a pecking order. It is also a fact that there will be other countries that want to knock the king off the hill. Lord knows China and Iran have their sights set on knocking us off the hill.
Here's a question for you...
Do you want the US at the top of the hill? If not who would you prefer was at the top?
I don't need to know your answer just keep it to yourself but at least be honest with yourself.
lanche,
are you for real, have you not followed anything about what happened with his UN speech?
please stop reading newsmax, fox is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
are you for real, have you not followed anything about what happened with his UN speech?
please stop reading newsmax, fox is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
You know, I voted for Bush, so that we could see his scheme in the lime light. If he hadn't been put back in office the republicans could have just blamed the resulting mess they created on the Democrats. The damned if you do scenario they force upon the public. I have a hunch Bush is a NEOCON and neither liberal or conservative. I think the whole lib vs con. argument is like trying to dispute how key lime pie tastes.
We both have the Constitution, for the time being ( Thanks Cheney ), but we have let the administration go too far to feed their bellies with F.U.D. and the smoke screen of public interest.
Economic interest - Bush - Texan Oil
War time interest - Cheny - Halliburton
Fear pollution interest - Donald Rumsfeld - Gilead
Not only have our leaders made money off the scandals that are so seemingly prevailant, but the media has been kind to them. While the media has had every right to damn near ruin these leaders they always paint a soft hearted villian. It is true that Bush has his own oppinion about how we, the American public, should feel in our seemingly desperate hour. The only despration is the the one of our Ecosystems. A few hours of research will uncover all sorts of nice little facts of who their collegues are at the companies they left. How many ex-White House and local state government officials need to work at their old companies to start smelling a fish?
Why is it that colleges like CALTECH, who would otherwise be pressing out technological advancements in energy concervation like ISV's can push out a Linux Distribution, have those same ex-White House officials on their board of trustees? Because they are good at administration? Reagan and Bush officials can not be summed up as good administration and that is NOT coming from a liberal, but a realist.
How many 911 reports have to be falsified in order for us to believe one? How many Congressional hearings are on at 4:30AM EST LIVE that are important enough be on at 6PM through PRIMETIME? OK. SURE. It is the liberals who are doing all the re-writing in history. Whatever. Do some of you people even know what the differences between a liberal and a conservative are? They surely aren't the same differences being portrayed in the current parties. That is like saying it was the Christian faith that started the Crusades and not a lust for power and corrupt influences that claimed to be something they obviosly were not.
<backs away from the podium>
We both have the Constitution, for the time being ( Thanks Cheney ), but we have let the administration go too far to feed their bellies with F.U.D. and the smoke screen of public interest.
Economic interest - Bush - Texan Oil
War time interest - Cheny - Halliburton
Fear pollution interest - Donald Rumsfeld - Gilead
Not only have our leaders made money off the scandals that are so seemingly prevailant, but the media has been kind to them. While the media has had every right to damn near ruin these leaders they always paint a soft hearted villian. It is true that Bush has his own oppinion about how we, the American public, should feel in our seemingly desperate hour. The only despration is the the one of our Ecosystems. A few hours of research will uncover all sorts of nice little facts of who their collegues are at the companies they left. How many ex-White House and local state government officials need to work at their old companies to start smelling a fish?
Why is it that colleges like CALTECH, who would otherwise be pressing out technological advancements in energy concervation like ISV's can push out a Linux Distribution, have those same ex-White House officials on their board of trustees? Because they are good at administration? Reagan and Bush officials can not be summed up as good administration and that is NOT coming from a liberal, but a realist.
How many 911 reports have to be falsified in order for us to believe one? How many Congressional hearings are on at 4:30AM EST LIVE that are important enough be on at 6PM through PRIMETIME? OK. SURE. It is the liberals who are doing all the re-writing in history. Whatever. Do some of you people even know what the differences between a liberal and a conservative are? They surely aren't the same differences being portrayed in the current parties. That is like saying it was the Christian faith that started the Crusades and not a lust for power and corrupt influences that claimed to be something they obviosly were not.
<backs away from the podium>
LOL, the rest of us are the parrots, eh? You learn well from your leaders. The exact same tactic that this post is about. Goebbels would be so proud!
Lanche,
That's the Clinton strike against Iraq that destroyed whatever was left of the purported WMD that the first Gulf War and subsequent inspections didn't take care of. Too bad your idiot in chief didn't read the Pittsburgh Post Gazette prior to his unprovoked invasion.
Clinton handled the possibility of left over WMD the correct way. He bombed the suspected sites -- unlike Bush who invaded Iraq to find NOTHING in the way of WMD but did find a way to fvck up the entire Middle East and make a profit as well.
Answer me this, if Clinton suspected there was still WMD left and found a way to handle it why did Bush feel the need for his invasion? An invasion that has us mired in a war and will lead to a sister state for Iran?
Looks like Clinton had the right idea. An effective strike that took out anything in the way of WMD that might have been left without killing thousands of civilians and U.S. military personnel, without maiming thousands, without wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, without destroying America's credibility around the world, without leaving us buried in the sand in Iraq while helping worldwide terrorist recruitment.
PS The PPG must have some information no one else has. After almost three years there still has been NO WMD found in or out of Iraq. A minor point that right wing imbeciles up to and including their chief imbecile can't seem to explain.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
Lanches whole arguement lies on the fact that the war at that time was the only option left, so it was perfectly justifiable. However, the heart of the dispute is whether Bush was right to launch the war when he did. He is the CIC, it was decision and he has to take responsibilites for those decisions.
You laugh off the UN inspectors and the whole inspections regime which seems to have done exactly what it was intended to do as a danger to national security. This seems to be the same strategy we are following now with NK and Iran, apparently putting our "national security" in the hands of the UN, Europeans, Chinese and Bill Richardson.
Inspectors were inspecting and confirming they were finding nothing. The "long range" missles Saddam had (which could barely reach Isreal) were begrudgingly being destroyed. If Saddam was really non-compliant, we did not have to launch a full scale invasion to topple the govt. Congress authorized a "use of force," but that force could have been as little as airstrikes to destroy facilities and WMD caches since Rumsfeld knew the WMDs "were in the areas around Bagdad and Tikrit," and force a higher degree of cooperation (or any other tactical decision short of invasion.) It did not require full-scale invasion. But really they could not do this as they had no clue to where anything was and what was being inspected was coming up clean.
None of this gave Bush pause, it didn't make him hesitate commiting so many of our men and money to this endevor; he did not really want to find out about WMDs. He only wanted to violently overthrow the Iraqi gov't, and this was the convient excuse. He worst case senario was the inspectors conclusively demonstrate Iraq had none of these things and he would lose his excuse and opportunity to so what the neocons were pushing for years.
According to your reasoning we should just launch a war if we at all feel a threat from another country and whether or not we have strong evidence to support the perceptions of a threat. After all its all about keeping America "#1." The folly of this reasoning is launching all these wars would be the quickest and most assured action to destroy America's power as we would grind down our armed forces and our treasury supporting such recklessly aggressive and militaristic behavior. WW2 should be lesson enough to where this line of reasoning leads you to...
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
Oh Really? And maybe Saddam shoved them all up his ass thinking we would never look there!
We should go Abu Graib on his ass and uncover that stockpile before he destroys America.
OH noes! How will I ever sleep tonite!!!
Gotta love lanche's twisted reasoning- "prove that they weren't moved!" First, you have to prove that they existed...
Which isn't going to happen, seeing as how all the invasion proved is that there were no weapons, and no credible capability to produce them.
Which leaves the Bush Admin in the position of being fools or liars, take you pick. Given their history, the latter seems much more likely.
And the Dems? Their mistake was that they trusted the Prez...
"Either way, the decisive fact is that most Americans put their trust in an administration that, for public consumption, portrayed the matter as an open-and-shut case. That trust, as we now can see, was horribly misguided."
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10620
Which isn't going to happen, seeing as how all the invasion proved is that there were no weapons, and no credible capability to produce them.
Which leaves the Bush Admin in the position of being fools or liars, take you pick. Given their history, the latter seems much more likely.
And the Dems? Their mistake was that they trusted the Prez...
"Either way, the decisive fact is that most Americans put their trust in an administration that, for public consumption, portrayed the matter as an open-and-shut case. That trust, as we now can see, was horribly misguided."
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10620
The whole 'reason' to go to war, etc etc, was fully justifiable if there was no good intel coming out of Iraq. It would be the simple matter of calling his bluff. The problem I am having, once thinking in this mannor I admit, is can I trust the President when he says that the info coming from the UN was inaccurate and what that information truely was.
The complete breakdown of the public relations between our government and the masses is reaching critical. If an institution you absolutely must subscribe to just 'handles' the situation the best way they see fit then there will be a break down in trust. Then my investment of trust can only be realized through the fruition of what has come of that investment. Right now my investment, like man others, seems to be bankrupting my trust.
The President right now is at an critical stage in his career. Impeachment is right around the corner and the circumstantial evidence of foul play is piling up with every turn. His notions of getting the job done and conveying what the job is to the public faltering. A President shouldn't have to defend himself, he should be vocalizing the heart of the people of the country. Right now the President is in a self made boxing ring doing everything he can to cover his kidneys. He is commiting political suicide not that it matters since he is in office already and has enough political power, through his chief staff, and supplanted governors.
If Bush wanted to clear the air he would outline his policy with statements and actions not act like the Ron Zook of Politics, "Were getting better every week." He needs to address things such as the insurance companies leaving southern states after major disasters. He needs address gas prices returning to a feasible market value ~ 1.65$, and he needs to address outsourcing of jobs to other countries. When I say address... I mean with policies to counter act, not justifications and appologies why they are staying the way they are.
If the President can jump on the war wagon maybe he could actually come home and help out the family and friends of the people who made it possible to have troops. Not speak out against those very people who put children into his army when they are afraid that their investment of trust is being misused. Bush gets a big, fat 0 in the customer service department. But I guess the Presidency isn't a civil service job anymore... its a secret service.
The most ridiculous part of the right wing's argument is, in 1998, while President Clinton was taking care of business bombing the hell out of Saddam's SUSPECTED WMD, they were all screaming at the top of their lungs, "WAG THE DOG"!!!
Now, after they're boy has unnecessarily and totally fvcked up the entire Middle East, they're all using Clinton's actions as an excuse for Bush's mistakes.
:roll:
Ridiculous.
Now, after they're boy has unnecessarily and totally fvcked up the entire Middle East, they're all using Clinton's actions as an excuse for Bush's mistakes.
:roll:
Ridiculous.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter