It's time for you libs to apologize for calling Pres Bush a liar

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Intellectual discussion? I think not. As near as I can tell, Mockery, all you want to do is be sarcastic and judgmental about issues you don't seem to have much grasp of. No offense.

Of course not, why would anyone take offense to such belittling commentary from the peanut gallery. I think I am fully capable of making my own decisions on what I do and what I don?t feel comfortable with responding to, but thanks for the fine words of encouragement.

I am amazed at how up tight people get when a guy tries to get people to think about why they feel the way they do on subjects. It?s like Barbara Streisand interrupting a massive left handed circle jerk or something in here. I am constantly molding my outlook on this topic everyday, which is mainly why I come in here to debate these topics. This seems to be leaps and bounds different from ?The Earth Is Flat? crowd that already has their minds made up and are not willing to move one iota in either direction. I see that being intellectually enlightened isn?t the goal of many people in this forum, it?s apparently a place to measure egos, be insulting, and brag about how 100% correct they are all the time.

Fun Stuff??..

So, you see yourself as bringing light and truth to the masses? Interesting, and in the final analysis a complete waste of everyones time. You may not have noticed this, considering your apparent shortcomings when confronted with group settings, but on must subjects of a political nature there can be no such thing as an "intellectual discussion." For example: I made up my mind long ago that imperialism was a "bad thing", no matter how you package it. While I'm more that willing to contrast the specifics of my beliefs with those who don't agree, I'm not going to change my mind.

Peanut gallery? I find that both charming and ignorant. Congratulations on effectively merging two such disparate states of being. From what little of your asinine musings I've been able to stomach, I'd have to say that you come far closer to the light-weight of the IQ spectrum than I.

A few word of advice that I hope you ignore: Drop the patrician routine and collective insults. Your views would be a bit less nauseating if you did so. You're no better than anyone else who posts here. Besides, you've decided to lock horns with one of the most dedicated, intelligent and well-heeled posters here. Instead of spitting venom in every direction and feigning boredom of it all, you should be dealing with your immediate problem.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

So, you see yourself as bringing light and truth to the masses? Interesting, and in the final analysis a complete waste of everyones time. You may not have noticed this, considering your apparent shortcomings when confronted with group settings, but on must subjects of a political nature there can be no such thing as an "intellectual discussion." For example: I made up my mind long ago that imperialism was a "bad thing", no matter how you package it. While I'm more that willing to contrast the specifics of my beliefs with those who don't agree, I'm not going to change my mind.

Peanut gallery? I find that both charming and ignorant. Congratulations on effectively merging two such disparate states of being. From what little of your asinine musings I've been able to stomach, I'd have to say that you come far closer to the light-weight of the IQ spectrum than I.

A few word of advice that I hope you ignore: Drop the patrician routine and collective insults. Your views would be a bit less nauseating if you did so. You're no better than anyone else who posts here. Besides, you've decided to lock horns with one of the most dedicated, intelligent and well-heeled posters here. Instead of spitting venom in every direction and feigning boredom of it all, you should be dealing with your immediate problem.

How about you do us all a favor and don?t dish up an entrée that you wish not to be served back on you. You are the one who intervened in this discussion and started with the ridiculing commentary towards me. Like I said, just because you don?t like another person?s opinion doesn?t mean you get to dictate them having it. You do not have that jurisdiction. If you don?t like what I have to say please excuse yourself from the table. Simple??problem solved.

I?m actually rather moderate if you bothered to take the time to understand where I am coming from. I only choose to be over the top from time to time, which is a lot different from the extremist commentary I?ve been seeing in here.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur

You are really grasping at straws now.

Since when would any sane person take "Fallujah and surrounding areas" as meaning all of Iraq?

Sorry to burst your bubble?.but Fullujah is the heart of the Sunni Triangle?The Sunni Triangle is where the majority of the killings have taken place in the Iraq War. Go pick up a map?

I'm quite aware of Falluja's geographical location.

What you fail to understand, however, is that the insurgency is not just in the Sunni Triangle.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur

You are really grasping at straws now.

Since when would any sane person take "Fallujah and surrounding areas" as meaning all of Iraq?

Sorry to burst your bubble?.but Fullujah is the heart of the Sunni Triangle?The Sunni Triangle is where the majority of the killings have taken place in the Iraq War. Go pick up a map?

I'm quite aware of Falluja's geographical location.

What you fail to understand, however, is that the insurgency is not just in the Sunni Triangle.

I concede that it is not limited to that region, but the majority of the killing and the action has taken place in the Sunni Triangle. You would agree with that right?

My description wasn't precise, to say the least, I apologize for that error.

 

[conjur]

I can accept that (the claim *and* the apology).

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Leave it to the neocons to bring up Clinton everytime. Is there one thread where they don't mention his name, despite the topic?

there should be an "automatic loss of argument" for that


Godwin's Law, which is popularly understood as "the first person in an argument to refer to Hitler or the Nazis loses the argument"

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush isn't just a liar, he's a cheat, con artist, con man, deceiver, deluder, dissimulator, equivocator, fabler, fabricator, fabulist, false witness, falsifier, fibber, jive turkey, maligner, misleader, perjurer, phony, prevaricator, promoter, storyteller, trickster, bastard, beggar, black sheep, blackguard, bully, bum, cad, cardsharp, charlatan, cheat, delinquent, devil, disgrace, felon, fraud, good-for-nothing, grafter, hooligan, hypocrite, idler, imp, knave, liar, loafer, miscreant, mountebank, ne'er-do-well, opportunist, pretender, prodigal, profligate, rake, rapscallion, recreant, reprobate, robber, rogue, rowdy, ruffian, scalawag, scamp, scoundrel, shyster, sinner, skunk, sneak, swindler, tough, tramp, trickster, varmint, villain, wastrel, and wretch, especially a wretch.

And if you can't see that you are blind, sightless, dark, eyeless, groping, in darkness, purblind, undiscerning, unseeing, unsighted, visionless, indifferent, careless, heedless, ignorant, imperceptive, inattentive, inconsiderate, indiscriminate, injudicious, insensitive, myopic, nearsighted, neglectful, oblivious, thoughtless, unaware, unconscious, undiscerning, unmindful, unobservant, unreasoning, unseeing, heedless, impetuous, inconsiderate, irrational, mindless, rash, reckless, senseless, shortsighted, thoughtless, unseeing, unthinking, especially unthinking.

You make the real liberals look stupid and misinformed. You are a horrible liberal. You piss people off while strengthening them in their own conservative beliefs. A real liberal would at least be able to convince me to open my mind enough to have a discussion. However, you merely show that I would have no say if I attempted to discuss anything with you. You are lost in a world of rhetoric that makes no sense. Just like many real conservatives are embarassed to have certain people arguing for them, any liberal most likely feels the same about your petty quibbles and liberal marketing jingles.

In those two paragraphs, the only real communication I got out of it was, "I am a biased and misinformed liberal. Do not argue with me or I will spout useless verbiage and cut you off before you say anything."

Also, your entire second paragraph is an Ad hominem. You attack me merely because I don't instantly believe you after your first paragraph. However, your first paragraph is an error in reasoning (if it is referring to the war), since it has yet to be proven whether or not he lied. Seriously, Moonbeam, you would be more beneficial to liberals everywhere if you stuck your foot in your mouth while intelligent, informed liberals made real points.

She was right, you are a varmint. (EDIT: she said bush is a varmint... among other things, but so are you... among other things.)

Look at this lunacy you say: "it has yet to be proven whether or not he [our leige, Mr Bush] lied"

yet to be proven to who? The USA lost Vietnam, is that yet to be proven to you, as well? What constitutes proof to you? Having someone in authority, like a politician, or the news, or Rush or the infallible Godly wisdom of the 911 Commision say, "It has been proven."? You can't form a judgment on your own? That must suck. No wonder you follow Bush like a sheep.


When a person says something that is not factual and claims that it is factual, he is lying. George Bush has been guilty of lying. Anybody, like me, who took the time to read anything besides FOX news before the war Knew he was lying at that time. Even if I was incapable of reading, I would still see the flaws in George Bush's arguments and would have believed (but without being able to show proof that I had read all over the internet) he was lying before the conquest of Iraq. People who are telling the truth don't have to rely on unsound argument or logical fallacies as Bush did.

Are you patiently waiting for the Supreme Court that appointed him to make a judgment on whether he has lied to us or not? You can't think for yourself? Wow, she was right! You are "unthinking, especially unthinking."

 

[conjur]

Hmm...what's this? NO link between Iraq and Al Qaeda re:9/11???

Say it ain't so!

Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Ari Fleischer September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_sept26.html

QUESTION: Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

 

[conjur]

Colin Powell quotes
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=884907706-621

Quote, January 10, 2001
?Saddam Hussein's forces are in a state where he cannot pose a threat to his neighbors at this point. We have been successful, through the sanctions regime, to really shut off most of the revenue that will be going to build his?rebuild his military.? [US Department of Defense, 1/10/01]


Quote, February 24, 2001
?He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.? [US Department of State, 2/24/03, The Mirror, 9/22/03, Associated Press, 9/25/03]


Quote, May 15, 2001
Saddam Hussein has not been able to ?build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction? for ?the last 10 years.? The sanctions policy has successfully kept him ?in a box.? [The Mirror, 9/22/03]



But, magically, a few months after 9/11:
Quote, January 19, 2002
?What we have to make a judgment on now is whether or not Saddam Hussein is serious about disarming, and is he cooperating with the inspectors in that disarmament process. If he is not, if he is continuing to try to hide things, if we have to keep discovering rockets that were undeclared that were supposed to carry chemical warheads, if we continue to find that documents having to do with nuclear weapons have been hidden in the homes of scientists, then it doesn't make any difference how long the inspection goes on because they're not going to get to the truth because Saddam Hussein does not want them to get to the truth.? [International Herald Tribune, 1/20/03, New York Times, 1/19/03, US Department of State, 1/19/03]

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

'Tis a shame - Colin Powell was one of the most respected men on the planet a few years ago, and appeared to foreseeably be the first viable black presidential candidate (I don't mean that as a value judgment on prior black candidates - I am only talking electability). Now he just looks like a patsy and a sellout. No wonder he doesn't want to stick around for a second term.

 

[conjur]

Powell's full testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 9/26/2002:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/sfrc-afternoon-092602.htm


The key part:

SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. : (Aside.) Thank you, Senator (Rockefeller ?). (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, I'm looking at pages 2 and 3 of your statement. Is the United States prepared to go to war against Iraq if it engages in illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program that's been established by the U.N.?

SEC. POWELL: The principal concern that we have are weapons of mass destruction, and the principal focus of the U.N. resolutions are weapons of mass destructions (sic), and that's what the inspection regime was trying to uncover and destroy. At the same time, however, Iraq is in violation of many other provisions, and --

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) -- I'm looking at -- I'm looking at your statement, and you say, "What Iraq must do to repair this breach."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war --

SEN. BIDEN: (Aside.) We still have a vote at 3:45.

SEN. SARBANES: -- to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say "What they must do."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: So they must do that or otherwise, we're prepared to move against them?

SEC. POWELL: That's -- I don't think I said that, Senator.

SEN. SARBANES: Okay, but what about --

SEC. POWELL: I'm saying -- I'm identifying, if I may -- I'm identifying the specific U.N. resolutions that they're in violation of, and under U.N. resolutions, they are supposed to comply with those resolutions. They have the force of international law.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say, "If these demands on Iraq sound like regime change, then so be it." Will we go -- will we take military action or go to war in order to make them release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown? Would we do that?

SEC. POWELL: I think the operating clause in that that is of the greatest concern is the one having to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that any of the others individually would lead to that kind of consequence.

SEN. SARBANES: So if you just -- I mean, if they did that, that would -- that's the one towards which war is directed.

SEC. POWELL: I think what we have to do -- no, I don't want to make that connection, Senator. I think what we have to do is look at their total response to these resolutions.

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) --

SEC. POWELL: And the resolution of greatest concern, the issue of greatest concern are the weapons of mass destruction. Which is why in 1998, both the United States Congress and the previous administration made that the policy of the United States government.

SEN. SARBANES: Why are you listing all these things? If the mass -- if the weapons is the thing, shouldn't we -- do you want authority to use military force again Iraq from the Congress in order to make them comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? Do you want that authority?

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: conjur
Powell's full testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 9/26/2002:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/sfrc-afternoon-092602.htm


The key part:

SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. : (Aside.) Thank you, Senator (Rockefeller ?). (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, I'm looking at pages 2 and 3 of your statement. Is the United States prepared to go to war against Iraq if it engages in illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program that's been established by the U.N.?

SEC. POWELL: The principal concern that we have are weapons of mass destruction, and the principal focus of the U.N. resolutions are weapons of mass destructions (sic), and that's what the inspection regime was trying to uncover and destroy. At the same time, however, Iraq is in violation of many other provisions, and --

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) -- I'm looking at -- I'm looking at your statement, and you say, "What Iraq must do to repair this breach."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war --

SEN. BIDEN: (Aside.) We still have a vote at 3:45.

SEN. SARBANES: -- to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say "What they must do."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: So they must do that or otherwise, we're prepared to move against them?

SEC. POWELL: That's -- I don't think I said that, Senator.

SEN. SARBANES: Okay, but what about --

SEC. POWELL: I'm saying -- I'm identifying, if I may -- I'm identifying the specific U.N. resolutions that they're in violation of, and under U.N. resolutions, they are supposed to comply with those resolutions. They have the force of international law.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say, "If these demands on Iraq sound like regime change, then so be it." Will we go -- will we take military action or go to war in order to make them release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown? Would we do that?

SEC. POWELL: I think the operating clause in that that is of the greatest concern is the one having to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that any of the others individually would lead to that kind of consequence.

SEN. SARBANES: So if you just -- I mean, if they did that, that would -- that's the one towards which war is directed.

SEC. POWELL: I think what we have to do -- no, I don't want to make that connection, Senator. I think what we have to do is look at their total response to these resolutions.

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) --

SEC. POWELL: And the resolution of greatest concern, the issue of greatest concern are the weapons of mass destruction. Which is why in 1998, both the United States Congress and the previous administration made that the policy of the United States government.

SEN. SARBANES: Why are you listing all these things? If the mass -- if the weapons is the thing, shouldn't we -- do you want authority to use military force again Iraq from the Congress in order to make them comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? Do you want that authority?

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

Come on man, WMD had nothing to do with it.

 

[Shuxclams]

Liar liar pants and administration on fire....













SHUX

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Reporter:

?Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th??

Bush:

?I can't make that claim.?

Blair:

"That answers your question.?

Oh, and just FYI - that was in JANUARY OF 2003 for all you FUD spreaders who keep trying to claim Bush claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize
GrGr: You forgot these quotes:

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It?s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability ? a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

We must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations? credibility.

What about these:

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction... But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East..."

"As the attacks of September 11th demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means that we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun."

"The president has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans."

"And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability."

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get.

To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

All of the ones I posted are from one person. Any guesses?

(Quotes from my archive and some from Hayes )

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Reporter:

?Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th??

Bush:

?I can't make that claim.?

Blair:

"That answers your question.?

Oh, and just FYI - that was in JANUARY OF 2003 for all you FUD spreaders who keep trying to claim Bush claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

CkG

You know what this administration was up to in the months leading up to the war.

The constant obfuscation...blurring the lines between Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.

Why do you think about 3/4 of the American public believed Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks?? Who would have given them that idea?

Hmmm....I wonder....

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

CAD do you not remember the speeches from Bush, Rice, etc. about the "Mushroom Clouds" and IMMINENT threat that Iraq posed to us? They were playing on our fears from 9/11 plain and simple, and at the time the American public bought it, just like the members of Congress did. Several key members, both Dem. and Rep., have stated that had they known that the WMD case was flawed that they would NOT have agreed to go to war. This war was built upon false pretenses plain and simple.

 

[PsharkJF]

vote nader, at least you know what you're getting!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: PsharkJF
vote nader, at least you know what you're getting!

Yeah ... Cheney/Bush.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD do you not remember the speeches from Bush, Rice, etc. about the "Mushroom Clouds" and IMMINENT threat that Iraq posed to us? They were playing on our fears from 9/11 plain and simple, and at the time the American public bought it, just like the members of Congress did. Several key members, both Dem. and Rep., have stated that had they known that the WMD case was flawed that they would NOT have agreed to go to war. This war was built upon false pretenses plain and simple.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction... But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East..."

"As the attacks of September 11th demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means that we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun."

"The president has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans."

"And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability."

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get.

To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

Doesn't matter SA - to claim that Bush lied would also mean that people who said the above lied too - especially since they had "intelligence" oversight and voted FOR the war. People like the person who's quotes I've displayed here aren't and weren't Bush lovers. This person isn't just a Bush parrot who believes something just because Bush said so. He had plenty of time, resources, and clout to do something - but didn't. He now wants to blame Bush for doing exactly as he did and for saying similar things as he did. This war was just regardless of our not finding WMDs and I've held that view from the start. I never needed the WMD issue to know that Saddam needed to be removed. He did not follow through with his end, he bluffed, we called him on it. He had plenty of chances to get us and the UN off his back - he chose not to. This is NOT going to get turned into another "Blame America" situation or war.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is nothing that could come to light that would make this unjustified in the minds of some. Lying, manipulating, starting a war for ego is just fine. There is no honor in them.

 

[Shuxclams]

CkG,

Why so defensive?

Come on, just admit he and his cronies lied.... you and the rest of the NeoCon's are on the run... like little rats. Come to the middle where its sensible and good for America, come to where we can restore America as the greatest nation on earth...... Help restore our standing in the world as the the place that takes in the tired, the sick and homeless. Where anyone can be president and we all have the right to live our lives as we see fit.... Come on over here to the middle, fight for America, not someone else's vision of America...... You don't have to be a "liberal", you can be a moderate.. really, I know there is some decency in there somewhere. You can do it....












SHUX

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Doesn't matter SA - to claim that Bush lied would also mean that people who said the above lied too - especially since they had "intelligence" oversight and voted FOR the war. People like the person who's quotes I've displayed here aren't and weren't Bush lovers. This person isn't just a Bush parrot who believes something just because Bush said so. He had plenty of time, resources, and clout to do something - but didn't. He now wants to blame Bush for doing exactly as he did and for saying similar things as he did. This war was just regardless of our not finding WMDs and I've held that view from the start. I never needed the WMD issue to know that Saddam needed to be removed. He did not follow through with his end, he bluffed, we called him on it. He had plenty of chances to get us and the UN off his back - he chose not to. This is NOT going to get turned into another "Blame America" situation or war.

CkG

Your position is so weak, CkG, it's completely laughable!!

Do you honestly think the Senate had the knowledge of all of the intelligence data that the administration had? Do you not remember that the Senators didn't receive the final intelligence report until a few days before the vote?

Do you honestly think the Senators saw the unvetted intelligence data that Wolfowitz/Feith were using in their DIA?

 

[PsharkJF]

And now all this talk of delaying the election due to "credible intelligence of a imminent terrorist attack" - they'll apparently trust the CIA when they're down in the polls - but Al Gore's challenge of "large irregularities in voting" was unconstitutional and an attempt to get himself elected by extending the election indefinitely until he had an outcome he liked.
Odd.
edit: I don't particularly like Kerry btw, but he's better than Bush. A Dean/Edwards ticket would make me touch myself at night.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams
CkG,

Why so defensive?

Come on, just admit he and his cronies lied.... you and the rest of the NeoCon's are on the run... like little rats. Come to the middle where its sensible and good for America, come to where we can restore America as the greatest nation on earth...... Help restore our standing in the world as the the place that takes in the tired, the sick and homeless. Where anyone can be president and we all have the right to live our lives as we see fit.... Come on over here to the middle, fight for America, not someone else's vision of America...... You don't have to be a "liberal", you can be a moderate.. really, I know there is some decency in there somewhere. You can do it....

SHUX

YOU aren't the middle
I'm a Conservative and proud of it. I will change that which I disagree on(within my party) from within. I don't need to feign "labellessness" to help change and mold politics. I actually get a kick out of people who think they can't consider themselves part of a "party" or "ideology" because they want to be "free thinkers":roll: Well, I tell you this - I think for myself and I'm a Republican and a Conservative. Now how many on the other side will state they are Liberals and Democrats? Not many. Have you seen how many people don't like the "liberal" term anymore? They feel the need to say "progressive" or claim "independent" to mask their true ideology. Pretty funny really

My principles and ideals are well grounded, thank you very much, and just because others(possibly including yourself) don't have a set principles outlook doesn't mean others can't. The liberals(atleast those who can still admit they are liberals) stand on their principles - and I say lets have that public debate over the differences, but for these so-called "moderates" or "independents" to muddy the water with their wishy-washy BS doesn't foster debate - it only aids in creating more special interest politics.

Meh - just my rebuttle rant to your spew

CkG