Blahr 0
Recommended Posts
benny 0
GM, I hope you have actually read some stuff about that Sudan wanting to hand Osama over thing and realize that it wasn't quite as simple as "here take him" and "no we don't want him." I know you have but you don't present the whole story here.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
gary350 0
Quote
That's funny, you'd think that the point I made is an arguable one. . .
Arguably laughable, and hardly worth addressing, though others in the thread have done a good job anyway.
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuoteI suppose that depends on your definition of war. Clinton was happy to simply continue bombing into eternity. We weren't accomplishing much, but hey when your nasty tricks are in the spotlight, let's go bomb something. He took us to war how many times that we didn't need to go? And he pulled necessary support due to political considerations (aka reading polls) how my times?
yeah, Clinton fucked up many times too, and we all know he is a liar, but what does that have to do with Bush and the war in Iraq?
I am not understanding the logic here. Is it that because Clinton was bad, it is ok for Bush to be bad?
Bush and his administration fucked up and one could argue that they are now trying their best to make something good out of it, but that is not the point.
They fucked up with their original statements, I really don't understand how even the biggest Bush fan can justify that little part?
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Look, both admins are and were in the opinion that the regime needed to change. Did you read what was posted or did you convieniently forget to because it actually agrees with what is happpening now?
The quotes given are a direct agreement with with the action that Bush took to change the regime. There is very little difference in what Bush did and what this quote is detailing as the democratic policy:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
And even more recently - buy the guy that is now the front runner for the bid for Democratic nomination, John Kerry:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
So now, explain to me why what Bush did was wrong in the eyes of the democrats, besides that he is not a democrat. Policy should not be decided by what it takes to regain power. Policy should be decided upon by what is just and right, not by what is convienient to use as a slander point.
You know it is funny that the Dems scream and Kerry on about how the economy is SO BAD! (even though it is not)
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
OK, I gotta do some work so I can't address everything here. First, I never asserted that the Army endorsed this report. However, I am pleased to see that they allowed this to go out. And the fact that it did come from the War College does carry some weight. I am sorry, but it does, no matter how many disclaimers are on the intro page. While the "new" DOD may be kinder and gentler, they are not inclined to employ liberal wussie hand-wringers!
And I have no idea how you can suggest from my opening that I see the world in a binary fashion.
Please enlighten me.
Again, when POWELL admits that there is no link between 911 and Iraq, when others are admitting that there may not be WMD found, when it comes out that Iraq was a paper tiger in terms of WMD...
what does that have to do with Clinton? Clinton did not take us to war.
Again I am not a liberal. If we were talking about Afghan. and the Taleban, I would be 10000% in agreement with you. We should be sinking our $billions there, not in a bullshit place like Iraq.
And once more... How the fuck do you equate Clinton flinging a few cruise missles and bombing raids at Iraq and Gulf War 2? It does not compute...
OK, I guess I am not getting too much work done today. Shoot.
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
And I have no idea how you can suggest from my opening that I see the world in a binary fashion.
Please enlighten me.
Again, when POWELL admits that there is no link between 911 and Iraq, when others are admitting that there may not be WMD found, when it comes out that Iraq was a paper tiger in terms of WMD...
what does that have to do with Clinton? Clinton did not take us to war.
Again I am not a liberal. If we were talking about Afghan. and the Taleban, I would be 10000% in agreement with you. We should be sinking our $billions there, not in a bullshit place like Iraq.
And once more... How the fuck do you equate Clinton flinging a few cruise missles and bombing raids at Iraq and Gulf War 2? It does not compute...
OK, I guess I am not getting too much work done today. Shoot.
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
Also:
I think the whole argument is silly. So what if the Dem candidates said that stuff in the past?
Yes, I know it is hypocritical of them to be against the war now, when they were afraid to speak their mind in the past just because the groundswell of support for Bush after 9-11.
As we used to say in the Corps: "Fucking Wahhh!"
That's politics. The real debate should be on the rights or wrongs of the war.
Expecting politicians to do the right thing is crazy and pointless.
Democrats are inconsistent and hypocritical? Duh!!!
Repubs are the same way? Holy Cow, alert the media!!!
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
I think the whole argument is silly. So what if the Dem candidates said that stuff in the past?
Yes, I know it is hypocritical of them to be against the war now, when they were afraid to speak their mind in the past just because the groundswell of support for Bush after 9-11.
As we used to say in the Corps: "Fucking Wahhh!"
That's politics. The real debate should be on the rights or wrongs of the war.
Expecting politicians to do the right thing is crazy and pointless.
Democrats are inconsistent and hypocritical? Duh!!!
Repubs are the same way? Holy Cow, alert the media!!!
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
kallend 1,683
QuoteQuoteQuoteWow - there's some big news. Do you think us libs didn't know that?
There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference.
So let me get this right.
It was ok for the Clinton Administration to bomb Iraq, and scream that they needed to get the regime changed, but it's not ok to actually follow through with it. Or is it that it would have been ok to follow through if it were a dem administration doing it. What is the double standard today?
That's funny, you'd think that the point I made is an arguable one - Guess not - must be undeniable. Sweet
It is irrelevant, not undebateable. There is a significant difference.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,683
QuoteQuote
Does this magically make Bush's and Cheney's lies more palatable to you?
Did your mother ever accept "He did it first" as an excuse?
Do not be quick to attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explained by incompetence.
I'm not sure from whence I acquired that truism, but I heard it somewhere.
In any event, you have to be able to tell the difference in order for it to be a lie. Ignorance is another issue altogether.
Are you suggesting that our Fearless Leader had done his homework for the first time in his life? Not too bloody likely.
Blue skies,
Winsor
Your explanation is plausible. However, it also implies incompetence on the part of the combined intelligence services of the US and its many allies. On the whole it seems more likely to me that the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth was stretched for political gain by the White House. After all, Bush's lips were moving.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,683
QuoteQuote
There's a teeny tiny difference between believing something enough to censure, contain, sanction, etc. versus believing enough and embellishing enough and LYING enough regarding an IMMINENT THREAT to actually take us to WAR and lose 525 (and counting) American lives, who knows how many Iraqi lives, and cost a couple HUNDRED BILLION dollars. Tiny difference.
Once again, you miss the point. At the risk of looking silly as you pull your head from the sand, consider this:
Intelligence collected - by numerous countries, not just the U.S. - clearly demonstrated that Saddam POSSESSED facilities for making WMD's, specifically nuclear weapons. There is undeniable evidence that Saddam had acquired certain equipment ONLY used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. .
How do you know that? Because you heard what the White House told you - that's how. The DCI doesn't report to you or to Congress, he reports to the President and his job security depends on the President.
All you know, and all the Senators know, is what they've been cleared to hear by the administration. If you believe it is the whole unvarnished truth, I'm selling a bridge you may be interested in.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,683
QuoteQuote
Does this magically make Bush's and Cheney's lies more palatable to you?
Did your mother ever accept "He did it first" as an excuse?
No, Kallend. We just have different definitions of lying.
A man may state what is untrue from ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every untruth is a lie.
Now in the political partisans' world it is the opposite of this. Evey untruth IS a lie. Sort of like the Bizzaro World if you know what I mean. Now I know how you Libs love to debate the meaning of the word "IS" but please try to stay focused at least for the sake of reasonable discussion
Please state your definition of a lie because for you to continue to insist "Bush Lied" you would either have to have another definition or "you are...........
What part of "The Buck Stops Here" don't you understand?
The buck doesn't stop at Hillary's desk or Albright's desk or Ted Kennedy's desk.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
SkyDekker 1,155
Turtlespeed, you are not getting my point:
Bush led your country into war on false pretenses. The fact that many other people on both sides of the political fence agreed with him (I won't get into any timeline issues, or the fact that there were other option then going in and starting an invasion) doesn't really matter, it still made him wrong.
The current administration told you that Iraq could launch an attack immediately against mainland US. it told you that it knew exactly where 100 to 500 tons of WMD were.
The original reasons for going to war were not true. they fucked up about that. Just because Clinton or any other democrat believed it as well, does not make it any less wrong.
Note that I am not mentioning anything about intentions by the current administration.
It remains that Bush fucked up. I find it actually quite comical to watch so many people jump though hoops to deny that fact.
Turtlespeed, just look up the statements made my Mr Powel (probably the administration's biggest "opponent" to the invasion) exactly one year ago in front of the UN. Those statement were presented as fact, not as possibilities based on sketchy intelligence.
Out of all his statements, one turned out to be true. Iraq did have missiles that could go further than the sanctioned 93 miles. They could go further by a full 20 miles.
They fucked up. Now it will be fun watching people jump through hoops and shooting loudly that other people were wrong as well as if that somehow deminishes the original fact.
PS. statements about how 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton had done his job can easily be refuted by statements that 9/11 would not have happened if the FBI had done its job much later on the timeline.
Bush led your country into war on false pretenses. The fact that many other people on both sides of the political fence agreed with him (I won't get into any timeline issues, or the fact that there were other option then going in and starting an invasion) doesn't really matter, it still made him wrong.
The current administration told you that Iraq could launch an attack immediately against mainland US. it told you that it knew exactly where 100 to 500 tons of WMD were.
The original reasons for going to war were not true. they fucked up about that. Just because Clinton or any other democrat believed it as well, does not make it any less wrong.
Note that I am not mentioning anything about intentions by the current administration.
It remains that Bush fucked up. I find it actually quite comical to watch so many people jump though hoops to deny that fact.
Turtlespeed, just look up the statements made my Mr Powel (probably the administration's biggest "opponent" to the invasion) exactly one year ago in front of the UN. Those statement were presented as fact, not as possibilities based on sketchy intelligence.
Out of all his statements, one turned out to be true. Iraq did have missiles that could go further than the sanctioned 93 miles. They could go further by a full 20 miles.
They fucked up. Now it will be fun watching people jump through hoops and shooting loudly that other people were wrong as well as if that somehow deminishes the original fact.
PS. statements about how 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton had done his job can easily be refuted by statements that 9/11 would not have happened if the FBI had done its job much later on the timeline.
turtlespeed 212
QuoteAlso:
I think the whole argument is silly. So what if the Dem candidates said that stuff in the past?
Yes, I know it is hypocritical of them to be against the war now, when they were afraid to speak their mind in the past just because the groundswell of support for Bush after 9-11.
As we used to say in the Corps: "Fucking Wahhh!"
That's politics. The real debate should be on the rights or wrongs of the war.
Expecting politicians to do the right thing is crazy and pointless.
Democrats are inconsistent and hypocritical? Duh!!!
Repubs are the same way? Holy Cow, alert the media!!!
The whole argument is to show how wishy washy and hipocritical the democrats are. That is why the post was made. It is just hard to get them to actually aknowledge it.
The war in Iraq is, was, and will go down in history as being justified. What is important in this argument is that the left is trying to use a "poor Him" defense defending Hussain. What they fail to say is that if the shoe was on the other foot, they would be doing the same thing. The left would call it by another name, but it would still happen. The out come would cost more than is being spent now, but would be the same outcome. Kallend says the argument is "Irrelevant". It is only irrelevant when you chose to deny the hipocracy of the former administration AS WELL as the administration that would hope to come into power. What is rellevant is that a group of people will chastise and riddicule a person for doing exactly what they were saying needed to be done, and then have them turn around and denounce the action that they were in favor of 8 months prior, but not because they don't still believe it, because it isn't politically feesable for them to back it anymore, even when the actions that are now being discarded deal with human rights issues and stopping someone that is known to torture and opress people by using pain as a tool.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
SkyDekker 1,155
QuoteThe war in Iraq is, was, and will go down in history as being justified.
Sure, just as it will go down in history that Bush is the first criminal to be the president of the US.
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuoteThe war in Iraq is, was, and will go down in history as being justified.
Sure, just as it will go down in history that Bush is the first criminal to be the president of the US.
And this is rellevant HOW?
Here is the left's version of arguing -
Blah Blah Blah Bush Sucks Blahj Blah Blah, (Oh hell, my argument really has no merit, maybe I can change the subject)) Oh look, Bush Got a DUI several Years ago.
(I hope the don't remember that Kennedy Killled someone)I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
wmw999 2,178
Quotejust as it will go down in history that Bush is the first criminal to be the president of the US
But he isn't. Neither party has a lock on miscreants being elected. Thomas Jefferson lied.
I haven't heard a single liberal that I know (and I know a lot of liberals) who has cried "poor Saddam." I haven't heard anyone say he was good for them, or a good man, or worthy of being someone's carpet.
I have heard talk about violating another nation's sovereignty being a very serious thing, and needing very serious justification. We seem to have lacked that. Does being bigger than Iraq (and therefore capable of kicking their ass) make it OK for us to do so?
I agree with Crapflinger about this whole argument. Each side is focusing on what it can tear down on the other side, which means that half of the time we're arguing about skew lines.
How can we get this country to focus on something that's important enough for us to work FOR, rather than overwhelmingly against? Just telling the other side they suck doesn't seem to be effective
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Thank you.
Clearly, I WIN!!!
I WIN THE THREAD!!!
I WIN THE THREAD!!!
I WIN THE THREAD!!!
I WIN THE THREAD!!!
Yayyyyy!
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
Clearly, I WIN!!!
I WIN THE THREAD!!!
I WIN THE THREAD!!!
I WIN THE THREAD!!!
I WIN THE THREAD!!!
Yayyyyy!
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
Kennedy 0
Wow, this is turning into a strange 24 hours. First I agree with kallend, now this. Just, wow.
Anyway, she's right, politicians are POS. No news there. I just like the original post because I am tired of people knocking on Bush while they supported doing exactly what's doing now.
If you agree with anything we've done in Eastern Europe recently (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc) then you have to agree with Iraq. Don't have to like Bush, and if he lied then, whoa, he's another politician, but going into Iraq was not different from Somalia or a dozen other (Clinton) conflicts.
OK, so Clinton was a poll reader stuck in a president's body, and Bush is, well I'll let a liberal fill in the blank.
Just want to put it out there that you can knock Bush for lying if you think he did, but (A) so does every other politician and (B) if you knock him for Iraq you have to knock Clinton three of four times equally as hard.
Any liberals going to step up and do that? If not, leave it alone already.
Anyway, she's right, politicians are POS. No news there. I just like the original post because I am tired of people knocking on Bush while they supported doing exactly what's doing now.
If you agree with anything we've done in Eastern Europe recently (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc) then you have to agree with Iraq. Don't have to like Bush, and if he lied then, whoa, he's another politician, but going into Iraq was not different from Somalia or a dozen other (Clinton) conflicts.
OK, so Clinton was a poll reader stuck in a president's body, and Bush is, well I'll let a liberal fill in the blank.
Just want to put it out there that you can knock Bush for lying if you think he did, but (A) so does every other politician and (B) if you knock him for Iraq you have to knock Clinton three of four times equally as hard.
Any liberals going to step up and do that? If not, leave it alone already.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteI WIN THE THREAD!!!
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
I was reminded to say:
Neener neener neener!!!
"I am so smart! I am so smart!
S - M - R - T !
I mean S - M - A - R - T !"
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
Neener neener neener!!!
"I am so smart! I am so smart!
S - M - R - T !
I mean S - M - A - R - T !"
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
Kennedy 0
ok, that one brought the tea right up my nose.
ju bast-ardo
ju bast-ardo
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Thank Homer Simpson for that one.
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe war in Iraq is, was, and will go down in history as being justified.
Sure, just as it will go down in history that Bush is the first criminal to be the president of the US.
And this is rellevant HOW?
Here is the left's version of arguing -
Blah Blah Blah Bush Sucks Blahj Blah Blah, (Oh hell, my argument really has no merit, maybe I can change the subject)) Oh look, Bush Got a DUI several Years ago.
Liberalism 101. If you can't argue with the message, attack the messenger. Everytime a conservative makes a valid point, the liberals change arguments.
never pull low......unless you are
All thats needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. You've heard it. I believe it.
Either way, its done. Right or wrong, we went in there and did it. Your heated discussions accomplish little other than to generate bad feelings.
I'm for one am glad Saddam is no longer in power.
SHOULD we have removed him?
Its moot people.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites