PROOF that the Anti-Bush crowd is purely partisan.

[Crimson]

What I want to know, since the dems seem to be falling over themselves to claim President Bush has "lied" to America in order to lead us in to war is why we NEVER hear the following FACTS:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

At worst, democrats are arguing that President Bush intentionally LIED to the American people about Iraq having WMD.. and at best democrats are saying is was provided wrong information by the CIA concerning Iraq's WMD.

One can argue the National Security Council is made up of people loyal to the President, so we will ignore their role and just assume they colaborated with the President on this issue for the sake of argument.

WHY then.. are the 373 members of congress, whom presumably ALSO reviewed this information, including approximately 115 democrats, NOT also being held responsible for misleading the American people?

"But the House and the Senate were mislead by the President" Lets again, for the sake of argument, assume this is true. Do members of congress make votes in support of war based purely on the information given to them by the President. Do they NOT do any research on their own? Why are none of these people being accused of misleading the American people, at worst, or of gross incompetence at best?

"But there is no way all members of Congress can be expected to be experts on Intelligence issues" That, I would agree with. Which is why Congress forms COMMITTEES which are supposed to consist of members which will know MORE about particular issues that other members.

WHY then.. are the 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI (18 of whom are democratic), NOT being held responsible for their duty to oversee the CIA? That is their JOB..

IF President Bush received misleading information from the CIA, why are the HPSCI and the SSCI not DEMANDING answers from the CIA?

IF President Bush LIED about the information he received from the CIA, why is the CIA not saying this to cover themselves?

So.. WHY are we not getting pressure from the left to investigate any of these organizations/committees/organizations? Because, they only have ONE issue on their agenda, and that issue is purely partisan: To try to discredit the Presidency of George Bush in order to get a democrat elected in 2004.

There is no other explanation here that would make any sense.. If the President was doing any of the things that are being accused of him, why are we not investigating the failure of Congress, the CIA, the HPSCI, NSC, and the SSCI to detect this BEFORE issuing legislation in support of war? Congressional members take the same oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States as the President.. If the accusations against President Bush are true, then we also need to understand the complete failure of the institutions in place in our government to prevent this from happening.

It won't happen, because these accusations against Bush are purely partisan.. and unless demands are made on these other agencies to defend themselves, there is no other conclusion to make other than what we are dealing with in the Anti-Iraq movement is nothing short of a poltical game, and those involved should be ashamed that they are putting American and Iraqi lives at risk by their selfishness.

 

[freegeeks]

stop posting useless crap - seriously

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
stop posting useless crap - seriously

Since when are facts "useless crap"?

 

[Insane3D]

Does generalizing make you feel better? Lord knows those conservatives don't have a partisan bone in their bodies...

 

[freegeeks]

facts for the YABA's are not facts for me

anyway - you and Crimson better start building a shrine for Bush-lite

the fact that counts for me that there are no WMD in Iraq

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: freegeeks
stop posting useless crap - seriously

Since when are facts "useless crap"?

 

[Pers]

i didn't read your entire post because i really think you're an idiot and rather waste my time drinking piss, but if the president didn't lie about WMD why did he INTENTIONALLY change his story 3-4 times?


first we were fighting because of 9-11 and saddam's ties to alqueda.
that didn't work because we soon realized alqueda is a religious fundamentalist group and saddam is a secular dictator.


then we were misled into thinking that there were WMD destruction in the country. we were fooled into believing saddam was capable of causing havoc to the western world had he chose to. Yet when we attacked his country, he seemed to have hid the weapons so damn well, he couldn't have found them himself.


And lastly, the POS MORAL-LESS sh!t who refers to himself as our president tried to make it seem as though it was a liberation campaign! HOW DARE HE TAKE HONOR IN KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. yeah i hate bush because i'm a democrat! NOT. i hate bush cause he's a motherfvckin murderer.

 

[dpm]

Isn't all American politics purely partisan? It sure looks that way from the outside, especially after having seen some of the party electioneering

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson
What I want to know, since the dems seem to be falling over themselves to claim President Bush has "lied" to America in order to lead us in to war is why we NEVER hear the following FACTS:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

At worst, democrats are arguing that President Bush intentionally LIED to the American people about Iraq having WMD.. and at best democrats are saying is was provided wrong information by the CIA concerning Iraq's WMD.

One can argue the National Security Council is made up of people loyal to the President, so we will ignore their role and just assume they colaborated with the President on this issue for the sake of argument.

WHY then.. are the 373 members of congress, whom presumably ALSO reviewed this information, including approximately 115 democrats, NOT also being held responsible for misleading the American people?

"But the House and the Senate were mislead by the President" Lets again, for the sake of argument, assume this is true. Do members of congress make votes in support of war based purely on the information given to them by the President. Do they NOT do any research on their own? Why are none of these people being accused of misleading the American people, at worst, or of gross incompetence at best?

"But there is no way all members of Congress can be expected to be experts on Intelligence issues" That, I would agree with. Which is why Congress forms COMMITTEES which are supposed to consist of members which will know MORE about particular issues that other members.

WHY then.. are the 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI (18 of whom are democratic), NOT being held responsible for their duty to oversee the CIA? That is their JOB..

IF President Bush received misleading information from the CIA, why are the HPSCI and the SSCI not DEMANDING answers from the CIA?

IF President Bush LIED about the information he received from the CIA, why is the CIA not saying this to cover themselves?

So.. WHY are we not getting pressure from the left to investigate any of these organizations/committees/organizations? Because, they only have ONE issue on their agenda, and that issue is purely partisan: To try to discredit the Presidency of George Bush in order to get a democrat elected in 2004.

There is no other explanation here that would make any sense.. If the President was doing any of the things that are being accused of him, why are we not investigating the failure of Congress, the CIA, the HPSCI, NSC, and the SSCI to detect this BEFORE issuing legislation in support of war? Congressional members take the same oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States as the President.. If the accusations against President Bush are true, then we also need to understand the complete failure of the institutions in place in our government to prevent this from happening.

It won't happen, because these accusations against Bush are purely partisan.. and unless demands are made on these other agencies to defend themselves, there is no other conclusion to make other than what we are dealing with in the Anti-Iraq movement is nothing short of a poltical game, and those involved should be ashamed that they are putting American and Iraqi lives at risk by their selfishness.

Hmmm so you are saying that along with the Administration Congress also screwed to pooch wqhen it came to the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq and that the Democrats aren't taking their fair share in the blame? I can see that. Like you I also see it as being Hypocritical for the Democrats in Congress to try and absolve themselves from any of this blame and to try and pin the whole thing on the Dub and his boys. What I don't understand is how you can say that it is the Democrats and not the Republicans to who are putting the American Soldiers lives at risk. Afterall it was Rummy who ignored the reccomendation from Armed Services Chief Of Staff for greater numbers and funds to execute this war and occupation so he could save money which directly has led to more causulties.

 

[Shelly21]

I really really wanted McCain to beat Al Gore like a drum. He would've win the election by a landslide, in my opinion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So, does all this crap come to you naturally, or do you think long and hard to get it wrong?

Rather than waste too much of my time, I will point out a few things for others, since you won't get it.

First, in the real world, the CIA is run by George Tenet. The information given to the committees is what Tenet deems "worthy". Tenets definition of that is whatever Bush considered worthy. So, the information provided from the intel agencies was just what Bush wanted them to have. BTW, if you recall, Tenet was grilled by Congress after the fact. I understand it was not his best day.

Second, Congress is not used to being lied to, or misled by the president. There was a certain trust in the relationship, so many Dems trusted Bush, much to their later regret. Perhaps you are faulting them for trusting Bush, and in hindsight your criticism of them is valid, but then mine about Bush would have to be too.

Third, Congress is run by the Republicans. Notice there has not been much investigation into this? Certainly the Dems could benefit by exploiting what is publically known. They havent, for a few reasons. First and most unfortunately, you and others dont want it. I think the Dems should be pushing for it regardless, but they arent because of political reasons, which brings us to the next point.

Congress is run by Republicans. Bush is a Republican. Republicans won't allow inquiries. The End.

If the Dems wanted to discredit Bush, all they would have to do is push this question

"Where are the weapons the President and his staff claimed they knew existed, not guessed about"

You make no sense, well you do, and that is your support of Bush as infallible in any meaningful sense approaches the most ferverent religious zeal. Bush is your God. We all know that though, so keep posting. You are a poster child for what is wrong with the Republicans today.

I do have problems with the Dems for not having stood up to Bush and his insane war. They do bear that responsibility. They did not because cowards and the too lazy to think would have steamrolled right over them. You wanted blood Crimson, you wanted death. You wanted revenge for 9/11 even if it was against the wrong party, but wanted someone else to get dirty for it. You did not care if it was right or wrong. You just wanted to kill someone, and you got your wish. Bush is a coward.

 

[UnemployedMay2001]

Originally posted by: Crimson
What I want to know, since the dems seem to be falling over themselves to claim President Bush has "lied" to America in order to lead us in to war is why we NEVER hear the following FACTS:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

At worst, democrats are arguing that President Bush intentionally LIED to the American people about Iraq having WMD.. and at best democrats are saying is was provided wrong information by the CIA concerning Iraq's WMD.

One can argue the National Security Council is made up of people loyal to the President, so we will ignore their role and just assume they colaborated with the President on this issue for the sake of argument.

WHY then.. are the 373 members of congress, whom presumably ALSO reviewed this information, including approximately 115 democrats, NOT also being held responsible for misleading the American people?

"But the House and the Senate were mislead by the President" Lets again, for the sake of argument, assume this is true. Do members of congress make votes in support of war based purely on the information given to them by the President. Do they NOT do any research on their own? Why are none of these people being accused of misleading the American people, at worst, or of gross incompetence at best?

"But there is no way all members of Congress can be expected to be experts on Intelligence issues" That, I would agree with. Which is why Congress forms COMMITTEES which are supposed to consist of members which will know MORE about particular issues that other members.

WHY then.. are the 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI (18 of whom are democratic), NOT being held responsible for their duty to oversee the CIA? That is their JOB..

IF President Bush received misleading information from the CIA, why are the HPSCI and the SSCI not DEMANDING answers from the CIA?

IF President Bush LIED about the information he received from the CIA, why is the CIA not saying this to cover themselves?

So.. WHY are we not getting pressure from the left to investigate any of these organizations/committees/organizations? Because, they only have ONE issue on their agenda, and that issue is purely partisan: To try to discredit the Presidency of George Bush in order to get a democrat elected in 2004.

There is no other explanation here that would make any sense.. If the President was doing any of the things that are being accused of him, why are we not investigating the failure of Congress, the CIA, the HPSCI, NSC, and the SSCI to detect this BEFORE issuing legislation in support of war? Congressional members take the same oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States as the President.. If the accusations against President Bush are true, then we also need to understand the complete failure of the institutions in place in our government to prevent this from happening.

It won't happen, because these accusations against Bush are purely partisan.. and unless demands are made on these other agencies to defend themselves, there is no other conclusion to make other than what we are dealing with in the Anti-Iraq movement is nothing short of a poltical game, and those involved should be ashamed that they are putting American and Iraqi lives at risk by their selfishness.

We get it already Parrot.... If the guy knocked on your door today, pulled his pants down and $hit in your mouth, you would ask him what he had for breakfast. I have found egregious problems with all our past presidents, you however, like most Yabas... could care less about the people and care only about the Party. Well, roughly 365 days from now the Party is over. Buh bye now.

 

[Gaard]

Hey HoP! Get in here and educate Crimson on the definition of 'proof'!

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson
What I want to know, since the dems seem to be falling over themselves to claim President Bush has "lied" to America in order to lead us in to war is why we NEVER hear the following FACTS:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

At worst, democrats are arguing that President Bush intentionally LIED to the American people about Iraq having WMD.. and at best democrats are saying is was provided wrong information by the CIA concerning Iraq's WMD.

One can argue the National Security Council is made up of people loyal to the President, so we will ignore their role and just assume they colaborated with the President on this issue for the sake of argument.

WHY then.. are the 373 members of congress, whom presumably ALSO reviewed this information, including approximately 115 democrats, NOT also being held responsible for misleading the American people?

"But the House and the Senate were mislead by the President" Lets again, for the sake of argument, assume this is true. Do members of congress make votes in support of war based purely on the information given to them by the President. Do they NOT do any research on their own? Why are none of these people being accused of misleading the American people, at worst, or of gross incompetence at best?

"But there is no way all members of Congress can be expected to be experts on Intelligence issues" That, I would agree with. Which is why Congress forms COMMITTEES which are supposed to consist of members which will know MORE about particular issues that other members.

WHY then.. are the 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI (18 of whom are democratic), NOT being held responsible for their duty to oversee the CIA? That is their JOB..

IF President Bush received misleading information from the CIA, why are the HPSCI and the SSCI not DEMANDING answers from the CIA?

IF President Bush LIED about the information he received from the CIA, why is the CIA not saying this to cover themselves?

So.. WHY are we not getting pressure from the left to investigate any of these organizations/committees/organizations? Because, they only have ONE issue on their agenda, and that issue is purely partisan: To try to discredit the Presidency of George Bush in order to get a democrat elected in 2004.

There is no other explanation here that would make any sense.. If the President was doing any of the things that are being accused of him, why are we not investigating the failure of Congress, the CIA, the HPSCI, NSC, and the SSCI to detect this BEFORE issuing legislation in support of war? Congressional members take the same oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States as the President.. If the accusations against President Bush are true, then we also need to understand the complete failure of the institutions in place in our government to prevent this from happening.

It won't happen, because these accusations against Bush are purely partisan.. and unless demands are made on these other agencies to defend themselves, there is no other conclusion to make other than what we are dealing with in the Anti-Iraq movement is nothing short of a poltical game, and those involved should be ashamed that they are putting American and Iraqi lives at risk by their selfishness.

Hmmm so you are saying that along with the Administration Congress also screwed to pooch wqhen it came to the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq and that the Democrats aren't taking their fair share in the blame? I can see that. Like you I also see it as being Hypocritical for the Democrats in Congress to try and absolve themselves from any of this blame and to try and pin the whole thing on the Dub and his boys. What I don't understand is how you can say that it is the Democrats and not the Republicans to who are putting the American Soldiers lives at risk. Afterall it was Rummy who ignored the reccomendation from Armed Services Chief Of Staff for greater numbers and funds to execute this war and occupation so he could save money which directly has led to more causulties.

I never said the democrats in Congress were only to blame.. I merely pointed out their numbers to show that significant numbers of them supported Bush, and not JUST Republicans.

I think its also hypocritical to say more money would have caused less casualties, when we KNOW the democrats are already trying to say we are spending TOO MUCH money.. You can't have it both ways.. you can't say we should have spent more, then say we are spending too much.

I think Rumsfeld plan, based on the number of casualties, was certainly more than acceptable. I don't think anyone would argue that they expected this FEW of casualties before the war started. I also think to say that if we simply spent more money, less people would have died, to be an ASSUMPTION.. there is no way to prove that.. and its easy to say something like that with no real way of proving it wrong or right.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Hey HoP! Get in here and educate Crimson on the definition of 'proof'!

Oh no, it is proof.. If the criticisms were truly for the good of the country, and not partisan, they would include all of the agencies I stated.. Since we are seeing NO blame pointed at anyone other than Bush, there is only one conclusion to come to.

And this is all based on the assumption Bush lied or mislead people.. I'm not even arguing that issue, thats a separate one, then its even more of a partisan attack.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson
What I want to know, since the dems seem to be falling over themselves to claim President Bush has "lied" to America in order to lead us in to war is why we NEVER hear the following FACTS:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

At worst, democrats are arguing that President Bush intentionally LIED to the American people about Iraq having WMD.. and at best democrats are saying is was provided wrong information by the CIA concerning Iraq's WMD.

One can argue the National Security Council is made up of people loyal to the President, so we will ignore their role and just assume they colaborated with the President on this issue for the sake of argument.

WHY then.. are the 373 members of congress, whom presumably ALSO reviewed this information, including approximately 115 democrats, NOT also being held responsible for misleading the American people?

"But the House and the Senate were mislead by the President" Lets again, for the sake of argument, assume this is true. Do members of congress make votes in support of war based purely on the information given to them by the President. Do they NOT do any research on their own? Why are none of these people being accused of misleading the American people, at worst, or of gross incompetence at best?

"But there is no way all members of Congress can be expected to be experts on Intelligence issues" That, I would agree with. Which is why Congress forms COMMITTEES which are supposed to consist of members which will know MORE about particular issues that other members.

WHY then.. are the 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI (18 of whom are democratic), NOT being held responsible for their duty to oversee the CIA? That is their JOB..

IF President Bush received misleading information from the CIA, why are the HPSCI and the SSCI not DEMANDING answers from the CIA?

IF President Bush LIED about the information he received from the CIA, why is the CIA not saying this to cover themselves?

So.. WHY are we not getting pressure from the left to investigate any of these organizations/committees/organizations? Because, they only have ONE issue on their agenda, and that issue is purely partisan: To try to discredit the Presidency of George Bush in order to get a democrat elected in 2004.

There is no other explanation here that would make any sense.. If the President was doing any of the things that are being accused of him, why are we not investigating the failure of Congress, the CIA, the HPSCI, NSC, and the SSCI to detect this BEFORE issuing legislation in support of war? Congressional members take the same oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States as the President.. If the accusations against President Bush are true, then we also need to understand the complete failure of the institutions in place in our government to prevent this from happening.

It won't happen, because these accusations against Bush are purely partisan.. and unless demands are made on these other agencies to defend themselves, there is no other conclusion to make other than what we are dealing with in the Anti-Iraq movement is nothing short of a poltical game, and those involved should be ashamed that they are putting American and Iraqi lives at risk by their selfishness.

Hmmm so you are saying that along with the Administration Congress also screwed to pooch wqhen it came to the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq and that the Democrats aren't taking their fair share in the blame? I can see that. Like you I also see it as being Hypocritical for the Democrats in Congress to try and absolve themselves from any of this blame and to try and pin the whole thing on the Dub and his boys. What I don't understand is how you can say that it is the Democrats and not the Republicans to who are putting the American Soldiers lives at risk. Afterall it was Rummy who ignored the reccomendation from Armed Services Chief Of Staff for greater numbers and funds to execute this war and occupation so he could save money which directly has led to more causulties.

I never said the democrats in Congress were only to blame.. I merely pointed out their numbers to show that significant numbers of them supported Bush, and not JUST Republicans.

I think its also hypocritical to say more money would have caused less casualties, when we KNOW the democrats are already trying to say we are spending TOO MUCH money.. You can't have it both ways.. you can't say we should have spent more, then say we are spending too much.

I think Rumsfeld plan, based on the number of casualties, was certainly more than acceptable. I don't think anyone would argue that they expected this FEW of casualties before the war started. I also think to say that if we simply spent more money, less people would have died, to be an ASSUMPTION.. there is no way to prove that.. and its easy to say something like that with no real way of proving it wrong or right.

Hmmm so how come the Pentagon has decided to bolster the force there by 50,000 troops? BTW, I'm not a Democrat. I changed Party affiliations prior to the 2000 Primary in CA to Republican so I could vote for McCain and then afterwards changed to Independent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Gaard
Hey HoP! Get in here and educate Crimson on the definition of 'proof'!

Oh no, it is proof.. If the criticisms were truly for the good of the country, and not partisan, they would include all of the agencies I stated.. Since we are seeing NO blame pointed at anyone other than Bush, there is only one conclusion to come to.

And this is all based on the assumption Bush lied or mislead people.. I'm not even arguing that issue, thats a separate one, then its even more of a partisan attack.

Would you clarify one point?

Who was it that ordered the troops into Iraq? Was it Congress?

Who took the active role in this invasion?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

yet another DP

 

[CaptnKirk]

Heres my stance - Republican Against Lying Cheating Theiving Self-Serving Warmongers.

These people have done NOTHIUNG for America and the American Citizen
Thay have only enacted policies and performed deeds to their own benifit.

Wrap themselves in the Flag and point at everyone esle screaming
"They aren't a Patriot"

BullSheet - Only a Coward would wrap up in a Flag.
A true patriot fights for it's symbolism and what it stands for.

That why I would NEVER use the FLAG or a RIBBON as my avatar
It's disrespectful.
Those who do are spewing crap without even understanding the stance.

 

[EXman]

<-- Proud of that flag Capn think what you want 99.9% of us don't givea rat's arse your opinion on avatars! how silly can you get it is an avatar!

BTW interesting info Crimson

 

[NeoV]

nice mustang, way to add something to the discussion...

by the way, I changed my avatar to the flag after 9/11, and haven't changed it back since....if that in some way irritates someone, oh well.

Yes, their are democrats in the Senate and the House, and yes, those bodies approved going to war...blah blah blah...the fact is that it is SHAMEFUL that all the intelligence that we used to justify the war, the intelligence that we stood before the UN and the world and cited, was all crap

 

[Mean MrMustard]

I'm ant-Bush. I think he is a fvcking idiot. So I guess I must be a democrat...

You're pretty pathetic.

 

[prometheusxls]

Your a democrat if you are registered democrat. I don't like bush, but I'm not a registered democrat.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk


That why I would NEVER use the FLAG or a RIBBON as my avatar
It's disrespectful.
Those who do are spewing crap without even understanding the stance.

Where have I done this?

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Gaard
Hey HoP! Get in here and educate Crimson on the definition of 'proof'!

Oh no, it is proof.. If the criticisms were truly for the good of the country, and not partisan, they would include all of the agencies I stated.. Since we are seeing NO blame pointed at anyone other than Bush, there is only one conclusion to come to.

And this is all based on the assumption Bush lied or mislead people.. I'm not even arguing that issue, thats a separate one, then its even more of a partisan attack.

Would you clarify one point?

Who was it that ordered the troops into Iraq? Was it Congress?

Who took the active role in this invasion?

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Gaard
Hey HoP! Get in here and educate Crimson on the definition of 'proof'!

Oh no, it is proof.. If the criticisms were truly for the good of the country, and not partisan, they would include all of the agencies I stated.. Since we are seeing NO blame pointed at anyone other than Bush, there is only one conclusion to come to.

And this is all based on the assumption Bush lied or mislead people.. I'm not even arguing that issue, thats a separate one, then its even more of a partisan attack.

Would you clarify one point?

Who was it that ordered the troops into Iraq? Was it Congress?

Who took the active role in this invasion?

Bush ordered them in.. What I am saying is, that if he did so under false information, its the DUTY of these other organizations to have checked his information.. and nobody is holding them accountable. That is, assuming Bush did anything wrong... which is a whole different issue.