Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread isn't about Clinton. You people really need to cut the Clinton umbilical cord. And for the first time in his life George Bush needs to stand up like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Tell the American people he was wrong about the WMD threat, the prime reason he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The only reason the American people, in the Bush administration's own estimation, would accept for invading Iraq. So they made it all up based on regurgitated intelligence to trick simpletons later into believing that it was the intelligence, not their fault.

:roll:

And you can prove all that conclusively, I presume? I mean you MUST have recordings of the conversations where they specifically planned to dupe US citizens, right? You surely must have detailed copies of all the documents that were forged/doctored/edited/filtered, etc., right?

Like it or not, ANY president who did ANYTHING regarding Iraq since the 1991 gulf war IS relevant.

Jason

The same folks who would give Clinton a pass for failing to adequately deal with bin Laden after 8 years pound their fists and froth at the mouth at Bush for not adressing the problem after 9 whole months in office. Once again it demonstrates their bias quite clearly

As someone who apparently is great at deciding who to premptively strike Bush sure does suck at it though At least Clinton was going for the right country (the one where Bin Laden could have been - even though this probably wasn't his intent). I'm by no means trying to defend him or his policies as I'm not informed enough to do so - I just think your bias is showing quite clearing as well.....

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
TLC: It seems you have something in common with the flatearthers. I've already pointed out th truth and you refuse to acknowledge it. Instead you have either tried redirects or have attempted to argue this into oblivion.

GrGr: Fine Mr Flatearther, hold on to your version of the truth. The fact remains that Saddam and Al Qaeda were not allied, they did not collaborate or cooperate in any significant way. And that is the factual truth acknowledged by your own sources. When will you acknowledge that fact?

I already did acknowledge that, or haven't you actually been reading this thread?

Fine so you admit that the American invasion of Iraq is an act of illegal aggressive warfare and that Bush is a war criminal? You have after all admitted that Bush did not have sufficient reasons to invade a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to the US. You cannot have it both ways. Either the war is legal or it isn't.

The truth is that you're revising your wording now in order to backpedal. You attempted to argue that this was semantics when really it boils down to being imprecise with words on your part.

Words have to be pretty precise to hold any real meaning. Without adhering to precise meanings as they stand, everything becomes meaningless. Law would have no effect. Nothing would matter.

I did not backpedal. My position has been exactly the same from the beginning. You however is twisting like a worm to pretend Al Qaeda was a real presence in Iraq. "Ties" indeed.

TLC: Now you try to create a strawman by assuming I'm saying something I'm nt. More poor tactics and dishonesty from you.

GrGr: So what are you saying?

Why don't you ever answer questions TLC. Who gave the American people the idea that Saddam was an immediate threat, an ally of Al Qaeda and a possessor of known WMD's when in fact all of those statements are untrue and were known to be untrue at the time they were made?

Have you been told everything you believe by some outside source, or do yo ever try to put two and two together? Why do you wrongly insist that the people who believe the way they do must have been brainwashed to have come to a conclusion? People come to faulty conclusions all the time without knowing the facts.

Besides that, if these people get their information from Bush, as you claim, then why don't they know that Saddam was not invlved in 9/11? Bush specficially stated that Saddam was not involved and the 9/11 Commission Report states the same thing, yet these people believe otherwise anyway. Can you explain that? It doesn't seem to jibe whatsoever with your contention.

Your entire position hangs on the post invasion 9/11 report and you wonder where the American people got the idea that invading Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? :laugh:

I repeat one of my questions above. Why don't you answer questions, TLC. Your little trick of answering questions with questions is getting old.

I've already pointed out that Bush said one thing before the invasion and another thing after when he acknowledged that he couldn't make the claim that there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Pre invasion Bush made the case that Iraq posed an immediate threat and had to be invaded:

Bush:

"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Here we have Saddam and his supposed WMD's + 9/11 + Al Qaeda all mixed up in the same War on Terror context and with the conclusion that the US must invade Iraq.

And you wonder why the American people got the mistaken idea that Saddam had WMD's, worked with Al Qaeda and posed a threat to the US? Do you acknowledge that Bush just might have had something to do with it? Don't you think that what must have been the largest propaganda campaign ever had anything to do with it? Don't you think 7/24 of War on Terror on all mainstream news channels all over the country just might have something to do with the disinformation fed to the US population and which the credulous part of the American population bought?.

7 Nov 2002 During a press conference, President George W Bush declares: "Some people say, 'Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.' Well, if we don't do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat... He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda... And we're going to deal with him."

Jan 31, 2004 Bush: I cannot make that claim [that Saddam had direct links with Al Qaeda]

Fact: Bush flipflopped on the Saddam+Al Qaeda issue.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr
GrGr: Fine Mr Flatearther, hold on to your version of the truth. The fact remains that Saddam and Al Qaeda were not allied, they did not collaborate or cooperate in any significant way. And that is the factual truth acknowledged by your own sources. When will you acknowledge that fact?

I already did acknowledge that, or haven't you actually been reading this thread?

Fine so you admit that the American invasion of Iraq is an act of illegal aggressive warfare and that Bush is a war criminal? You have after all admitted that Bush did not have sufficient reasons to invade a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to the US. You cannot have it both ways. Either the war is legal or it isn't. [/quote]
Can you possibly maitain some continuity from one post to the next? Look above again and tell how one fvcking connects to the other. You jump from 'collaboration between AQ and Saddam' (which I previously acknowledged there was no operative collaberation, which I sadly have to state specfically here or you'll once again stwist my words per your usual tactics) to somehow claiming I admitted Iraq was an illegal invasion and that Bush is a war criminal (which I did not claim).

This is, once again, a demonstration of the type of dishonest tactics you have been using in this thread (and others as well) and which are commonplace for you. Stop wasting my time with such blatant bullsh*t tactics and 3rd-grade behaviors. When or if you can ever debate without the dishonesty and immaturity so evident in your posts, maybe I'll respond to you again. I don't see that happening any time soon though.

Later.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread isn't about Clinton. You people really need to cut the Clinton umbilical cord. And for the first time in his life George Bush needs to stand up like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Tell the American people he was wrong about the WMD threat, the prime reason he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The only reason the American people, in the Bush administration's own estimation, would accept for invading Iraq. So they made it all up based on regurgitated intelligence to trick simpletons later into believing that it was the intelligence, not their fault.

:roll:

And you can prove all that conclusively, I presume? I mean you MUST have recordings of the conversations where they specifically planned to dupe US citizens, right? You surely must have detailed copies of all the documents that were forged/doctored/edited/filtered, etc., right?

Like it or not, ANY president who did ANYTHING regarding Iraq since the 1991 gulf war IS relevant.

Jason

The same folks who would give Clinton a pass for failing to adequately deal with bin Laden after 8 years pound their fists and froth at the mouth at Bush for not adressing the problem after 9 whole months in office. Once again it demonstrates their bias quite clearly

As someone who apparently is great at deciding who to premptively strike Bush sure does suck at it though At least Clinton was going for the right country (the one where Bin Laden could have been - even though this probably wasn't his intent). I'm by no means trying to defend him or his policies as I'm not informed enough to do so - I just think your bias is showing quite clearing as well.....

I've already stated in here that those who think attacking Iraq was ONLY about Iraq are doing little more than hiding their head in the sand. Being in Iraq is about being in the ME and having a location smack-dab in the middle of the areas where the terrorist problem can be dealt with directly. Why Iraq? Because of all the countries in the ME, it was the one that could be invaded with the least amount of problems and the most justifcations. And even if those justification were weak, they were stronger than any justiifcation that could have been manufactured to invade some other Arab nation. Plus we could rid the ME of a megalomaniac who had caused numerous problems there previously and had sons in line to continue his nastiness for decades longer.

Going into Iraq provided more benefits to the US, both strategic and otherwise, and the least amount of drawbacks, even though there were plenty. Still, the problem of terror in the ME had to be addressed directly. The indirect route didn't work. Tha fact is more than evident.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread isn't about Clinton. You people really need to cut the Clinton umbilical cord. And for the first time in his life George Bush needs to stand up like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Tell the American people he was wrong about the WMD threat, the prime reason he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The only reason the American people, in the Bush administration's own estimation, would accept for invading Iraq. So they made it all up based on regurgitated intelligence to trick simpletons later into believing that it was the intelligence, not their fault.

:roll:

And you can prove all that conclusively, I presume? I mean you MUST have recordings of the conversations where they specifically planned to dupe US citizens, right? You surely must have detailed copies of all the documents that were forged/doctored/edited/filtered, etc., right?

Like it or not, ANY president who did ANYTHING regarding Iraq since the 1991 gulf war IS relevant.

Jason

The same folks who would give Clinton a pass for failing to adequately deal with bin Laden after 8 years pound their fists and froth at the mouth at Bush for not adressing the problem after 9 whole months in office. Once again it demonstrates their bias quite clearly

As someone who apparently is great at deciding who to premptively strike Bush sure does suck at it though At least Clinton was going for the right country (the one where Bin Laden could have been - even though this probably wasn't his intent). I'm by no means trying to defend him or his policies as I'm not informed enough to do so - I just think your bias is showing quite clearing as well.....

I've already stated in here that those who think attacking Iraq was ONLY about Iraq are doing little more than hiding their head in the sand. Being in Iraq is about being in the ME and having a location smack-dab in the middle of the areas where the terrorist problem can be dealt with directly. Why Iraq? Because of all the countries in the ME, it was the one that could be invaded with the least amount of problems and the most justifcations. And even if those justification were weak, they were stronger than any justiifcation that could have been manufactured to invade some other Arab nation. Plus we could rid the ME of a megalomaniac who had caused numerous problems there previously and had sons in line to continue his nastiness for decades longer.

Going into Iraq provided more benefits to the US, both strategic and otherwise, and the least amount of drawbacks, even though there were plenty. Still, the problem of terror in the ME had to be addressed directly. The indirect route didn't work. Tha fact is more than evident.

I think you make reasonable points about the value of holding Iraq but these were unfortunately not the reasons that the invasion was sold on. I'd rather not have the ole bait and switch when it comes to declaring potentially illegal wars. I think the US has set a dangerous precedent since we are one of the leaders among nations.

As for solving terrorism - the other route that doesn't work is trying to do this essentially on our own. We need to have the backing of UN (as much as everyone is annoyed by that) in order to get the support we need to stabalize the ME and not stretch our defense and monitary resources too thin.

 

[Grunt03]

Ok already, we have seen this over and over. Like it is going to change anything.
We do not know who did it for sure, we do not know if Bush himself did it for sure.

Each political party has faults, one is no better than the other. We need to get past all of this s#it and move on. Bring our troops home, rebuild the structure of the United States.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Grunt03
Ok already, we have seen this over and over. Like it is going to change anything.
We do not know who did it for sure, we do not know if Bush himself did it for sure.

Each political party has faults, one is no better than the other. We need to get past all of this s#it and move on. Bring our troops home, rebuild the structure of the United States.

But if a strong arm is not installed and in place in Iraq, terrorism will simply thrive in the "new", "liberated" Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread isn't about Clinton. You people really need to cut the Clinton umbilical cord. And for the first time in his life George Bush needs to stand up like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Tell the American people he was wrong about the WMD threat, the prime reason he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The only reason the American people, in the Bush administration's own estimation, would accept for invading Iraq. So they made it all up based on regurgitated intelligence to trick simpletons later into believing that it was the intelligence, not their fault.

:roll:

And you can prove all that conclusively, I presume? I mean you MUST have recordings of the conversations where they specifically planned to dupe US citizens, right? You surely must have detailed copies of all the documents that were forged/doctored/edited/filtered, etc., right?

Like it or not, ANY president who did ANYTHING regarding Iraq since the 1991 gulf war IS relevant.

Jason

The same folks who would give Clinton a pass for failing to adequately deal with bin Laden after 8 years pound their fists and froth at the mouth at Bush for not adressing the problem after 9 whole months in office. Once again it demonstrates their bias quite clearly

As someone who apparently is great at deciding who to premptively strike Bush sure does suck at it though At least Clinton was going for the right country (the one where Bin Laden could have been - even though this probably wasn't his intent). I'm by no means trying to defend him or his policies as I'm not informed enough to do so - I just think your bias is showing quite clearing as well.....

I've already stated in here that those who think attacking Iraq was ONLY about Iraq are doing little more than hiding their head in the sand. Being in Iraq is about being in the ME and having a location smack-dab in the middle of the areas where the terrorist problem can be dealt with directly. Why Iraq? Because of all the countries in the ME, it was the one that could be invaded with the least amount of problems and the most justifcations. And even if those justification were weak, they were stronger than any justiifcation that could have been manufactured to invade some other Arab nation. Plus we could rid the ME of a megalomaniac who had caused numerous problems there previously and had sons in line to continue his nastiness for decades longer.

Going into Iraq provided more benefits to the US, both strategic and otherwise, and the least amount of drawbacks, even though there were plenty. Still, the problem of terror in the ME had to be addressed directly. The indirect route didn't work. Tha fact is more than evident.

I think you make reasonable points about the value of holding Iraq but these were unfortunately not the reasons that the invasion was sold on. I'd rather not have the ole bait and switch when it comes to declaring potentially illegal wars. I think the US has set a dangerous precedent since we are one of the leaders among nations.

Nations protect their interest whether they have to lie, cheat, or steal.

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have a truthful president who would permit more Islamofascist attacks against the US by allowing truth to tie his hands, or wuold you rather have a deceitful one who is being so in order to protect the citizens of this country? Personally, I'll choose the later. I'd rather suffer the consequences of the deceit in this case than subject me, mine, or even you to potential death. YMMV.

As for solving terrorism - the other route that doesn't work is trying to do this essentially on our own. We need to have the backing of UN (as much as everyone is annoyed by that) in order to get the support we need to stabalize the ME and not stretch our defense and monitary resources too thin.

If the UN could demonstrate they were actually useful and had some teeth, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the UN has turned into a toothless windbag of an organization. It's a club for countries to beat each other over the head diplomatically with no intent to actually solve any ills.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread isn't about Clinton. You people really need to cut the Clinton umbilical cord. And for the first time in his life George Bush needs to stand up like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Tell the American people he was wrong about the WMD threat, the prime reason he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The only reason the American people, in the Bush administration's own estimation, would accept for invading Iraq. So they made it all up based on regurgitated intelligence to trick simpletons later into believing that it was the intelligence, not their fault.

:roll:

And you can prove all that conclusively, I presume? I mean you MUST have recordings of the conversations where they specifically planned to dupe US citizens, right? You surely must have detailed copies of all the documents that were forged/doctored/edited/filtered, etc., right?

Like it or not, ANY president who did ANYTHING regarding Iraq since the 1991 gulf war IS relevant.

Jason

Stop it. Every time Bush screws up, and that's painfully often, the first name out of the mouths of his enablers is, "Clinton." Get over it. Clinton is long gone. It's been over four years.

For the first time in his life, can't Bush be accountable for his own actions by now?

Your response is precisely why I included the word "simpletons" in my post. Only a simpleton would require a recording or detailed copies of documents to recognize what is clearly happening right in front of their own eyes.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread isn't about Clinton. You people really need to cut the Clinton umbilical cord. And for the first time in his life George Bush needs to stand up like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Tell the American people he was wrong about the WMD threat, the prime reason he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The only reason the American people, in the Bush administration's own estimation, would accept for invading Iraq. So they made it all up based on regurgitated intelligence to trick simpletons later into believing that it was the intelligence, not their fault.

:roll:

And you can prove all that conclusively, I presume? I mean you MUST have recordings of the conversations where they specifically planned to dupe US citizens, right? You surely must have detailed copies of all the documents that were forged/doctored/edited/filtered, etc., right?

Like it or not, ANY president who did ANYTHING regarding Iraq since the 1991 gulf war IS relevant.

Jason

The same folks who would give Clinton a pass for failing to adequately deal with bin Laden after 8 years pound their fists and froth at the mouth at Bush for not adressing the problem after 9 whole months in office. Once again it demonstrates their bias quite clearly

As someone who apparently is great at deciding who to premptively strike Bush sure does suck at it though At least Clinton was going for the right country (the one where Bin Laden could have been - even though this probably wasn't his intent). I'm by no means trying to defend him or his policies as I'm not informed enough to do so - I just think your bias is showing quite clearing as well.....

I've already stated in here that those who think attacking Iraq was ONLY about Iraq are doing little more than hiding their head in the sand. Being in Iraq is about being in the ME and having a location smack-dab in the middle of the areas where the terrorist problem can be dealt with directly. Why Iraq? Because of all the countries in the ME, it was the one that could be invaded with the least amount of problems and the most justifcations. And even if those justification were weak, they were stronger than any justiifcation that could have been manufactured to invade some other Arab nation. Plus we could rid the ME of a megalomaniac who had caused numerous problems there previously and had sons in line to continue his nastiness for decades longer.

Going into Iraq provided more benefits to the US, both strategic and otherwise, and the least amount of drawbacks, even though there were plenty. Still, the problem of terror in the ME had to be addressed directly. The indirect route didn't work. Tha fact is more than evident.

I think you make reasonable points about the value of holding Iraq but these were unfortunately not the reasons that the invasion was sold on. I'd rather not have the ole bait and switch when it comes to declaring potentially illegal wars. I think the US has set a dangerous precedent since we are one of the leaders among nations.

Nations protect their interest whether they have to lie, cheat, or steal.

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have a truthful president who would permit more Islamofascist attacks against the US by allowing truth to tie his hands, or wuold you rather have a deceitful one who is being so in order to protect the citizens of this country? Personally, I'll choose the later. I'd rather suffer the consequences of the deceit in this case than subject me, mine, or even you to potential death. YMMV.

As for solving terrorism - the other route that doesn't work is trying to do this essentially on our own. We need to have the backing of UN (as much as everyone is annoyed by that) in order to get the support we need to stabalize the ME and not stretch our defense and monitary resources too thin.

If the UN could demonstrate they were actually useful and had some teeth, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the UN has turned into a toothless windbag of an organization. It's a club for countries to beat each other over the head diplomatically with no intent to actually solve any ills.

The problem here is that we aren't really protecting our nation as much as we are protecting some corporations who have our gov't in their pockets. If not for oil we wouldn't be involved in the middle east and my guess is there would be no p!ssed off terrorists crashing planes into things. A lot of 3rd world people have been royally screwed by globalization (not just by American companies either). You take all that cash we used to invade Iraq and put it towards pushing alternative power sources and overall the American people would be a hell of a lot better off - but since Bush got all his money from oil (and on top of this the oil corps are very powerful) this will never happen until there is no more oil to be had.

I'm not sure how useless the UN is - I feel like there has been a lot of spin on the UN as of late so I'm not sure where the truth is. The intention of the organization is at least good....

 

[slash196]

There is too much quoting going on. I think, just this once, the right needs to admit that they are not, and apologize, and then we can move on to more important things.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
The problem here is that we aren't really protecting our nation as much as we are protecting some corporations who have our gov't in their pockets. If not for oil we wouldn't be involved in the middle east and my guess is there would be no p!ssed off terrorists crashing planes into things. A lot of 3rd world people have been royally screwed by globalization (not just by American companies either). You take all that cash we used to invade Iraq and put it towards pushing alternative power sources and overall the American people would be a hell of a lot better off - but since Bush got all his money from oil (and on top of this the oil corps are very powerful) this will never happen until there is no more oil to be had.

Like it or not, oil rules this world. Without it we fall into darkness and anarchy. I'm not ready to permit global economic chaos to reign to appease a few ludite whacko Islamics who don't like our culture impeding on theirs.

I'm not sure how useless the UN is - I feel like there has been a lot of spin on the UN as of late so I'm not sure where the truth is. The intention of the organization is at least good....

Good intentions are likes wishes, and you know the old saying about wishing in one hand and sh!tting in the other and seeing which hand gets filled faster, right? Good intentions don't make policy and they don't enforce rules. While most problems can be worked out diplomatically, we have to face the fact that sometimes only violent action solves problem, at least in the past and up to today. Some day that may change. Some day is not here yet though and we cannot currently predicate our decisions on "some day."

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tommunist
The problem here is that we aren't really protecting our nation as much as we are protecting some corporations who have our gov't in their pockets. If not for oil we wouldn't be involved in the middle east and my guess is there would be no p!ssed off terrorists crashing planes into things. A lot of 3rd world people have been royally screwed by globalization (not just by American companies either). You take all that cash we used to invade Iraq and put it towards pushing alternative power sources and overall the American people would be a hell of a lot better off - but since Bush got all his money from oil (and on top of this the oil corps are very powerful) this will never happen until there is no more oil to be had.

Like it or not, oil rules this world. Without it we fall into darkness and anarchy. I'm not ready to permit global economic chaos to reign to appease a few ludite whacko Islamics who don't like our culture impeding on theirs.

I'm not sure how useless the UN is - I feel like there has been a lot of spin on the UN as of late so I'm not sure where the truth is. The intention of the organization is at least good....

Good intentions are likes wishes, and you know the old saying about wishing in one hand and sh!tting in the other and seeing which hand gets filled faster, right? Good intentions don't make policy and they don't enforce rules. While most problems can be worked out diplomatically, we have to face the fact that sometimes only violent action solves problem, at least in the past and up to today. Some day that may change. Some day is not here yet though and we cannot currently predicate our decisions on "some day."

We don't need no oil - just less. I don't think a world with a lot less oil consumption would be as bad as you think (I for one think it would make things better).



not predicating our decisions on "some day" would sort of contradict a preemptive war though wouldn't it?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
We don't need no oil - just less. I don't think a world with a lot less oil consumption would be as bad as you think (I for one think it would make things better).

No question about that. Well, except - How do we make that happen? Trying to legislate fuel economy any more than we have already would cause a backlash by the public. Nor is it as simple as just taking away SUVs. We'd need to cur down on electric consumption. How many geeks in here want to be mandated to only one, energy saving computer? How about one TV? Sorry, but most people are selfish-greedy bastards who are not willing to sacrifice so four generations of humans can suck the Earth dry instead of three.

To tell the truth, I'd rather that gas guzzlers proliferate now and we just go hog wild. I' like to see all the oil used up immediately, forcing us to alternate forms of energy. Because until we are absolutely forced, few are going to do anything about it.

not predicating our decisions on "some day" would sort of contradict a preemptive war though wouldn't it?

Some day was a reflective phrase referential to that "some day" when things may "change" and violence is no longer necessary.

It's a pipe dream, kind of like advocating less oil consumption.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread isn't about Clinton. You people really need to cut the Clinton umbilical cord. And for the first time in his life George Bush needs to stand up like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Tell the American people he was wrong about the WMD threat, the prime reason he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The only reason the American people, in the Bush administration's own estimation, would accept for invading Iraq. So they made it all up based on regurgitated intelligence to trick simpletons later into believing that it was the intelligence, not their fault.

:roll:

And you can prove all that conclusively, I presume? I mean you MUST have recordings of the conversations where they specifically planned to dupe US citizens, right? You surely must have detailed copies of all the documents that were forged/doctored/edited/filtered, etc., right?

Like it or not, ANY president who did ANYTHING regarding Iraq since the 1991 gulf war IS relevant.

Jason

Stop it. Every time Bush screws up, and that's painfully often, the first name out of the mouths of his enablers is, "Clinton." Get over it. Clinton is long gone. It's been over four years.

For the first time in his life, can't Bush be accountable for his own actions by now?

Your response is precisely why I included the word "simpletons" in my post. Only a simpleton would require a recording or detailed copies of documents to recognize what is clearly happening right in front of their own eyes.

No, actually the simpleton, which is best represented by YOU in this thread, is someone who would ASSERT and ASSUME based on FAITH, which is exactly what you are doing. If you want to observe and make judgments, that's fine, it's you're right the same as it's everyone else's. However, given that there is NO concrete evidence for your claims you can't expect everyone to just buy your interpretation wholesale. Plenty of us look at this scenario and realize that there are just FAR TOO MANY UNKNOWNS for us to make any sort of CREDIBLE absolute judgment.

And while I agree that far too often Clinton comes into arguments where he doesn't belong, the fact is that every president who has sat in the oval office since the gulf war and has made proclamations, assertions, claims, etc., IS relevant. The first thing a new president has to do when he comes into office is figure out where his predecessor has left the situation standing and to act from there.

Like it or not, yes, Clinton's actions ARE important and ABSOLUTELY played a role in this whole scenario. Obviously not the DECIDING role, but an important role nonetheless.

Jason

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: aeternitas
I could give two shits if Bush lied or not. All that matters is that Hussain and all his murdering fscks are gone. No more rape rooms no more torture chambers.

If any of you think that bush is worse that that guy, youre a bunch of fools.

Then what was Abu Ghraib? There was rape and torture going on there, too. Are you now going to call for Bush's head on a platter?

Oh? Bush himself called for that? Get your head out of your ass, boy. Obviously Bush overstated many things, but compairing Bush to what hussain did is just plain discusting of you. Do not defend hussain. Maybe you need to get out more.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
If you're so secure in your convictions Chicken, why did you turn tail and run away when you were cornered in the other thread? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly fellow Bush supporters who were "blind and brainwashed" about the connection-that-wasn't between Iraq and 9/11. Just where, exactly, did your fellow "delusional sheep" get this disinformation, I wonder? Why did Bush get so much of your "moron" vote?

It's been a busy week so I lost track of that thread. I don't have any kind of habit of running from discussions in here, so that a pretty poor accusation. For the rest, see below.

You also keep dodging the fact that your final deception, that Bush publicly denied a connection, did NOT happen until months after we invaded Iraq. I wonder why you ran rather than addressing this?

::sigh::

I've been dodging it, have I? Hmmm. OK. Want an answer? Here it goes:

I didn't realize the was some artificial time limit imposed, first of all. Was it you who decided when Bush should make this public pronouncement about Saddam not being involved in 9/11? If so, when should he have done it?

Second of all, what did it really change? Haven't recent polls showed people still believe the same thing, despite the fact that Bush stated otherwise back in '03? What does that tell you? It tells me is that these people simply don't know what Bush says. They surely don't get their information from listening to Bush either, because if they did THEY'D KNOW FVCKING BETTER. Simple logic would tell you that.

So much for the Bush Jedi mind trick theory.

Ta ta.

Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.

Do you have any response for your lack of logic?

Bite me, you sanctimonious hypocrite. This is the first time I've been back to post anything since you posted your latest evasion. You, on the other hand, posted over 40 times in the three days that thread remained on the front page (after I called you on your nonsense), including at least once more in the very same thread. "Lost track of the thread," my eye. Smells like Chicken to me.

Moving on, your comment about time limit is an evasion. Since we were talking about how Americans were deceived into supporting Bush's assault on Iraq, the relevant issue is what Bush and his minions said before he invaded. They hammered the Iraq-9/11 insinuation relentlessly in the months before our attack. Bush didn't grudgingly admit there was no connection until months later, and Cheney quickly contradicted him. Bush didn't admit the non-connection for a prime-time audience until one of the debates with Kerry, 18 months after he pulled the trigger. Unless you have a time machine, that's a bit too late for Americans to change their minds about allowing Bush to invade.

As far as people still believing there's a connection, a couple of points. First, you're changing the subject. We're talking about how Bush deceived the public initially, not why some are still deceived.

Second, the answer is obvious if you were being honest. The compliant media replayed the administration's Iraq-terrorism-9/11 innuendo endlessly in the months before the invasion, along with the WMD claims and the rest of the anti-Iraq propaganda. The average American undoubtedly heard it dozens of times. When Bush was forced to concede the lack of connection, on the other hand, it was only reported for a day or two in the mainstream media. Couple that with most people's reluctance to believe they were duped, and it no surprise so many Bushies still cling to the Iraq-9/11 fiction.

You'll note the Bush administration loves their scripted talking points, and makes sure everyone parrots them religiously. Repetition is critical to successfully manipulating perceptions. That's why it's so integral to marketing ... and brainwashing. It is a science. The Bush administration knew full well their endless repetition of Iraq-terrorism-9/11 would lead most Americans to accept a lie as fact. They willfully and intentionally deceived America to gain support for their agenda. Bush & Co. lied to America.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
If you're so secure in your convictions Chicken, why did you turn tail and run away when you were cornered in the other thread? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly fellow Bush supporters who were "blind and brainwashed" about the connection-that-wasn't between Iraq and 9/11. Just where, exactly, did your fellow "delusional sheep" get this disinformation, I wonder? Why did Bush get so much of your "moron" vote?

It's been a busy week so I lost track of that thread. I don't have any kind of habit of running from discussions in here, so that a pretty poor accusation. For the rest, see below.

You also keep dodging the fact that your final deception, that Bush publicly denied a connection, did NOT happen until months after we invaded Iraq. I wonder why you ran rather than addressing this?

::sigh::

I've been dodging it, have I? Hmmm. OK. Want an answer? Here it goes:

I didn't realize the was some artificial time limit imposed, first of all. Was it you who decided when Bush should make this public pronouncement about Saddam not being involved in 9/11? If so, when should he have done it?

Second of all, what did it really change? Haven't recent polls showed people still believe the same thing, despite the fact that Bush stated otherwise back in '03? What does that tell you? It tells me is that these people simply don't know what Bush says. They surely don't get their information from listening to Bush either, because if they did THEY'D KNOW FVCKING BETTER. Simple logic would tell you that.

So much for the Bush Jedi mind trick theory.

Ta ta.

Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.

Do you have any response for your lack of logic?

Bite me, you sanctimonious hypocrite.

Bzzzt! Wrong response.

No TLC for you.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
If you're so secure in your convictions Chicken, why did you turn tail and run away when you were cornered in the other thread? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly fellow Bush supporters who were "blind and brainwashed" about the connection-that-wasn't between Iraq and 9/11. Just where, exactly, did your fellow "delusional sheep" get this disinformation, I wonder? Why did Bush get so much of your "moron" vote?

It's been a busy week so I lost track of that thread. I don't have any kind of habit of running from discussions in here, so that a pretty poor accusation. For the rest, see below.

You also keep dodging the fact that your final deception, that Bush publicly denied a connection, did NOT happen until months after we invaded Iraq. I wonder why you ran rather than addressing this?

::sigh::

I've been dodging it, have I? Hmmm. OK. Want an answer? Here it goes:

I didn't realize the was some artificial time limit imposed, first of all. Was it you who decided when Bush should make this public pronouncement about Saddam not being involved in 9/11? If so, when should he have done it?

Second of all, what did it really change? Haven't recent polls showed people still believe the same thing, despite the fact that Bush stated otherwise back in '03? What does that tell you? It tells me is that these people simply don't know what Bush says. They surely don't get their information from listening to Bush either, because if they did THEY'D KNOW FVCKING BETTER. Simple logic would tell you that.

So much for the Bush Jedi mind trick theory.

Ta ta.

Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.

Do you have any response for your lack of logic?

Bite me, you sanctimonious hypocrite. This is the first time I've been back to post anything since you posted your latest evasion. You, on the other hand, posted over 40 times in the three days that thread remained on the front page (after I called you on your nonsense), including at least once more in the very same thread. "Lost track of the thread," my eye. Smells like Chicken to me.

Moving on, your comment about time limit is an evasion. Since we were talking about how Americans were deceived into supporting Bush's assault on Iraq, the relevant issue is what Bush and his minions said before he invaded. They hammered the Iraq-9/11 insinuation relentlessly in the months before our attack. Bush didn't grudgingly admit there was no connection until months later, and Cheney quickly contradicted him. Bush didn't admit the non-connection for a prime-time audience until one of the debates with Kerry, 18 months after he pulled the trigger. Unless you have a time machine, that's a bit too late for Americans to change their minds about allowing Bush to invade.

As far as people still believing there's a connection, a couple of points. First, you're changing the subject. We're talking about how Bush deceived the public initially, not why some are still deceived.

Second, the answer is obvious if you were being honest. The compliant media replayed the administration's Iraq-terrorism-9/11 innuendo endlessly in the months before the invasion, along with the WMD claims and the rest of the anti-Iraq propaganda. The average American undoubtedly heard it dozens of times. When Bush was forced to concede the lack of connection, on the other hand, it was only reported for a day or two in the mainstream media. Couple that with most people's reluctance to believe they were duped, and it no surprise so many Bushies still cling to the Iraq-9/11 fiction.

You'll note the Bush administration loves their scripted talking points, and makes sure everyone parrots them religiously. Repetition is critical to successfully manipulating perceptions. That's why it's so integral to marketing ... and brainwashing. It is a science. The Bush administration knew full well their endless repetition of Iraq-terrorism-9/11 would lead most Americans to accept a lie as fact. They willfully and intentionally deceived America to gain support for their agenda. Bush & Co. lied to America.

Bzzzt! Wrong response.

No TLC for you.

ROFL. Exactly what I expected. When the facts have you cornered, you fly the coup. :disgust:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
If you're so secure in your convictions Chicken, why did you turn tail and run away when you were cornered in the other thread? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly fellow Bush supporters who were "blind and brainwashed" about the connection-that-wasn't between Iraq and 9/11. Just where, exactly, did your fellow "delusional sheep" get this disinformation, I wonder? Why did Bush get so much of your "moron" vote?

It's been a busy week so I lost track of that thread. I don't have any kind of habit of running from discussions in here, so that a pretty poor accusation. For the rest, see below.

You also keep dodging the fact that your final deception, that Bush publicly denied a connection, did NOT happen until months after we invaded Iraq. I wonder why you ran rather than addressing this?

::sigh::

I've been dodging it, have I? Hmmm. OK. Want an answer? Here it goes:

I didn't realize the was some artificial time limit imposed, first of all. Was it you who decided when Bush should make this public pronouncement about Saddam not being involved in 9/11? If so, when should he have done it?

Second of all, what did it really change? Haven't recent polls showed people still believe the same thing, despite the fact that Bush stated otherwise back in '03? What does that tell you? It tells me is that these people simply don't know what Bush says. They surely don't get their information from listening to Bush either, because if they did THEY'D KNOW FVCKING BETTER. Simple logic would tell you that.

So much for the Bush Jedi mind trick theory.

Ta ta.

Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.

Do you have any response for your lack of logic?

Bite me, you sanctimonious hypocrite. This is the first time I've been back to post anything since you posted your latest evasion. You, on the other hand, posted over 40 times in the three days that thread remained on the front page (after I called you on your nonsense), including at least once more in the very same thread. "Lost track of the thread," my eye. Smells like Chicken to me.

Moving on, your comment about time limit is an evasion. Since we were talking about how Americans were deceived into supporting Bush's assault on Iraq, the relevant issue is what Bush and his minions said before he invaded. They hammered the Iraq-9/11 insinuation relentlessly in the months before our attack. Bush didn't grudgingly admit there was no connection until months later, and Cheney quickly contradicted him. Bush didn't admit the non-connection for a prime-time audience until one of the debates with Kerry, 18 months after he pulled the trigger. Unless you have a time machine, that's a bit too late for Americans to change their minds about allowing Bush to invade.

As far as people still believing there's a connection, a couple of points. First, you're changing the subject. We're talking about how Bush deceived the public initially, not why some are still deceived.

Second, the answer is obvious if you were being honest. The compliant media replayed the administration's Iraq-terrorism-9/11 innuendo endlessly in the months before the invasion, along with the WMD claims and the rest of the anti-Iraq propaganda. The average American undoubtedly heard it dozens of times. When Bush was forced to concede the lack of connection, on the other hand, it was only reported for a day or two in the mainstream media. Couple that with most people's reluctance to believe they were duped, and it no surprise so many Bushies still cling to the Iraq-9/11 fiction.

You'll note the Bush administration loves their scripted talking points, and makes sure everyone parrots them religiously. Repetition is critical to successfully manipulating perceptions. That's why it's so integral to marketing ... and brainwashing. It is a science. The Bush administration knew full well their endless repetition of Iraq-terrorism-9/11 would lead most Americans to accept a lie as fact. They willfully and intentionally deceived America to gain support for their agenda. Bush & Co. lied to America.

Bzzzt! Wrong response.

No TLC for you.

ROFL. Exactly what I expected. When the facts have you cornered, you fly the coup. :disgust:

Yeah. Don't even consider that it's because you immediately start off with the belligerent fvckwit act. :roll:

Take a hike. I don't tolerate that crap, fool.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tommunist
We don't need no oil - just less. I don't think a world with a lot less oil consumption would be as bad as you think (I for one think it would make things better).

No question about that. Well, except - How do we make that happen? Trying to legislate fuel economy any more than we have already would cause a backlash by the public. Nor is it as simple as just taking away SUVs. We'd need to cur down on electric consumption. How many geeks in here want to be mandated to only one, energy saving computer? How about one TV? Sorry, but most people are selfish-greedy bastards who are not willing to sacrifice so four generations of humans can suck the Earth dry instead of three.

To tell the truth, I'd rather that gas guzzlers proliferate now and we just go hog wild. I' like to see all the oil used up immediately, forcing us to alternate forms of energy. Because until we are absolutely forced, few are going to do anything about it.

not predicating our decisions on "some day" would sort of contradict a preemptive war though wouldn't it?

Some day was a reflective phrase referential to that "some day" when things may "change" and violence is no longer necessary.

It's a pipe dream, kind of like advocating less oil consumption.

The gov't can encourage research and production of non-petrol cars and car services. It can still be private but just encouraged. I think if it can be made to be cost effective (which I think it can be) people will make the switch. It's worth a shot.

I think it's more likely to see a "someday" where the UN perhaps is more likely to take more substansive action when necesary. This doesn't mean that I think going to Iraq was necesary (at least without getting some more help and not trying to shoulder the majority of the burden) but in the light of a lack of WMDs and the like it seems like the UN method was working pretty well - just not for the oil companies interests.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
If you're so secure in your convictions Chicken, why did you turn tail and run away when you were cornered in the other thread? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly fellow Bush supporters who were "blind and brainwashed" about the connection-that-wasn't between Iraq and 9/11. Just where, exactly, did your fellow "delusional sheep" get this disinformation, I wonder? Why did Bush get so much of your "moron" vote?

It's been a busy week so I lost track of that thread. I don't have any kind of habit of running from discussions in here, so that a pretty poor accusation. For the rest, see below.

You also keep dodging the fact that your final deception, that Bush publicly denied a connection, did NOT happen until months after we invaded Iraq. I wonder why you ran rather than addressing this?

::sigh::

I've been dodging it, have I? Hmmm. OK. Want an answer? Here it goes:

I didn't realize the was some artificial time limit imposed, first of all. Was it you who decided when Bush should make this public pronouncement about Saddam not being involved in 9/11? If so, when should he have done it?

Second of all, what did it really change? Haven't recent polls showed people still believe the same thing, despite the fact that Bush stated otherwise back in '03? What does that tell you? It tells me is that these people simply don't know what Bush says. They surely don't get their information from listening to Bush either, because if they did THEY'D KNOW FVCKING BETTER. Simple logic would tell you that.

So much for the Bush Jedi mind trick theory.

Ta ta.

Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.

Do you have any response for your lack of logic?

Bite me, you sanctimonious hypocrite. This is the first time I've been back to post anything since you posted your latest evasion. You, on the other hand, posted over 40 times in the three days that thread remained on the front page (after I called you on your nonsense), including at least once more in the very same thread. "Lost track of the thread," my eye. Smells like Chicken to me.

Moving on, your comment about time limit is an evasion. Since we were talking about how Americans were deceived into supporting Bush's assault on Iraq, the relevant issue is what Bush and his minions said before he invaded. They hammered the Iraq-9/11 insinuation relentlessly in the months before our attack. Bush didn't grudgingly admit there was no connection until months later, and Cheney quickly contradicted him. Bush didn't admit the non-connection for a prime-time audience until one of the debates with Kerry, 18 months after he pulled the trigger. Unless you have a time machine, that's a bit too late for Americans to change their minds about allowing Bush to invade.

As far as people still believing there's a connection, a couple of points. First, you're changing the subject. We're talking about how Bush deceived the public initially, not why some are still deceived.

Second, the answer is obvious if you were being honest. The compliant media replayed the administration's Iraq-terrorism-9/11 innuendo endlessly in the months before the invasion, along with the WMD claims and the rest of the anti-Iraq propaganda. The average American undoubtedly heard it dozens of times. When Bush was forced to concede the lack of connection, on the other hand, it was only reported for a day or two in the mainstream media. Couple that with most people's reluctance to believe they were duped, and it no surprise so many Bushies still cling to the Iraq-9/11 fiction.

You'll note the Bush administration loves their scripted talking points, and makes sure everyone parrots them religiously. Repetition is critical to successfully manipulating perceptions. That's why it's so integral to marketing ... and brainwashing. It is a science. The Bush administration knew full well their endless repetition of Iraq-terrorism-9/11 would lead most Americans to accept a lie as fact. They willfully and intentionally deceived America to gain support for their agenda. Bush & Co. lied to America.

Bzzzt! Wrong response.

No TLC for you.

ROFL. Exactly what I expected. When the facts have you cornered, you fly the coup. :disgust:

Yeah. Don't even consider that it's because you immediately start off with the belligerent fvckwit act. :roll:

Take a hike. I don't tolerate that crap, fool.

Got it. You'll dish it out, but can't take it. Let's see how you started the post to which I replied:

• "Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.
  
  "Do you have any response for your lack of logic?"

Here's another, just a few posts up, to a different member:

• "This is, once again, a demonstration of the type of dishonest tactics you have been using in this thread (and others as well) and which are commonplace for you. Stop wasting my time with such blatant bullsh*t tactics and 3rd-grade behaviors. When or if you can ever debate without the dishonesty and immaturity so evident in your posts ..."

And:

• "Maybe for morons like you. ...
  
  "You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you."

Shall I keep looking? Frankly, I think "sanctimonious hypocrite" is pretty accurate. How about you?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think, DMA, that the real burden of proof was on the Bush Admin, and it hasn't been met, and very likely never will be. Once the invasion was over, Admin spokesmen admitted that WMD's were the one thing that all of the insiders could agree on to present to the people. No new intelligence was brought forward, but old stuff from the Clinton years was "re-evaluated" in the wake of 9/11, an event represented as having "changed everything" in a way favorable to pre-existing neocon goals, and to what GWB stated a scant 3 weeks into his admin- "Find me a way", per Paul O'Neill.

In terms of public perception, WOI was really about 9/11, and that perception had been deliberately fostered by the Admin in a variety of ways, all of which contained the seeds of plaausible deniability. What it was about in the minds of the Admin's inner circle, we really have no idea. When suspicion became belief, it was represented as fact, and there is a difference, as we've now discovered.

I have a fair amount of respect for some of the charlatans in this world, particularly those who confine their pitches to the realm of the intangible- Televangelists and Motivational seminar guys. They'll never get busted, simply because what they pitch, they deliver, something that exists only in the eye of the beholder.

I have little respect, however, for somebody fleeced in a stock swindle who won't actually admit they've been swindled, even though their money is gone- and that's pretty much where Bush's apologists fall in my estimation. He's supported not because he's delivered, but because he's believed and adored, contrary to all evidence. Had Clinton done the same, these folks would be calling for his head on a plate...

 

[Gaard]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the typical Bush supporter....

Originally posted by: aeternitas
I could give two shits if Bush lied or not.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't tolerate that crap, fool.

Shall I vault this?