This economic recovery....

[winsor 186]

Quote

Ah, remember the good old days when conservatives were calling anyone who doubted the threat of the Saddam WMD's a traitor? How times change; now they fall all over themselves to show how stupid it was to believe that Saddam had WMD's.

Look, Al Gore himself believed it! What an idiot. Can you believe what a fool he was?

There were plenty of conservatives that thought the whole thing was a fool's errand from the git-go.

Al Gore is an idiot. He fancies himself to be an "intellectual," but is a monumental dullard.

Not to worry - GWB is every bit as stupid, and the two of them give imbeciles a bad name.

All things considered, neither side of the aisle is burdened with any surfeit of intellectual capacity.


BSBD,

Winsor

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, remember the good old days when conservatives were calling anyone who doubted the threat of the Saddam WMD's a traitor? How times change; now they fall all over themselves to show how stupid it was to believe that Saddam had WMD's.

Look, Al Gore himself believed it! What an idiot. Can you believe what a fool he was?

Do you know that the POTUS has advisers and thousands of people that are supporting him with intelligence, and intelligence gathering operations?

Unfortunately a large fraction of them seem to be "yes men", who will tell the POTUS what he wants to hear.

You mean the same way that these people did?javascript: postShortcut(3871258)

Scenario - A history prof is asked to dig up a fact for a presentation that the dean of faculty is giving a speech on. The info that was given to the dean was incorrect, and actually damaging in its presented form.

The DoF goes ahead with his speech and the audience is APPAULED!

Q1 Who is to blame?
Q2 Who actually receives the blame?

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

[kallend 1,635]

Weasel all you want. The FACT remains that Bush's war was based on false pretenses and was (and continues to be) a monumental waste of money that could better have been spent improving the lives of Americans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Weasel all you want. The FACT remains that Bush's war was based on false pretenses and was (and continues to be) a monumental waste of money that could better have been spent improving the lives of Americans.

I noticed that you didn't answer the questions I asked.

I think Bush had the best intentions in mind.
He acted on the information that he had, and the reccomendations of his advisors.

He also might have drawn his deceisions from public statements of people like Gore and Clinton and Kerry.

It seems that he had quite a few more players, and (heavyweights at that) giving him unreliable information than just the one history prof in hypothetical I presented for you.

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

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

mythical WMDs.

Would that be the mythical WMD's that the ISG reported on, the mythical WMD's that the [url "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/"]insurgents detonated, or the mythical WMD's that the [url "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/"]US removed and shipped to Canada?

The ones that even BUSH finally admitted didn't exist.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

Dot-mil doesn't allow youtube access - got another source?

I'm sure that the troops that were affected by the Sarin shell are glad to know that they were attacked by an imaginary weapon.

Too bad. White House press conference, August 21, 2006, I'm sure you can find a source accessible to you.

I have one thing to say then off to Tball...... Kall there may have not been WMD's on the scale discussed but they were there. To dismiss them as totally false is simply wrong..

Go tell that to G. W. Bush. He says there weren't any. Go tell it to Colin Powell who now admits being embarrassed by his UN speech on the subject. Go tell it to Tony Blair, who admitted there were no WMDs to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. Tell it to Donald Rumsfeld, who in May 2006 even tried to deny that he's ever claimed there were WMDs in Iraq.

It's funny how the architects of the war could admit to being wrong about the WMDs, but diehard DZ.Com conservatives still cling tenaciously to the myth.

Dont forget both Clintons, Kerry, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy and on and on and on

way before Bush was even a candidate

Hmmm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[winsor 186]

Quote

Weasel all you want. The FACT remains that Bush's war was based on false pretenses and was (and continues to be) a monumental waste of money that could better have been spent improving the lives of Americans.

Let's see, that's a $trillion that we did not have in the first place.

I take exception to the idea that the money should have been spent at all; the fact that it was spent on something that ANYONE who had done their homework knew to be a guaranteed disaster is all the more galling.

Paying $10,000 per non-governmental taxpayer for the privilege of well-earning the contempt of the world is not my idea of a bargain.

If we had dropped the bucks on an interconnected network of electric rail transportation, we might have reduced our dependence on petroleum imports and thus had some justification of the debt incurred.

As it stands, we are holding the bag for the costs - with less than nothing to show for it.

As a nation, our decision-making skills leave something to be desired.


BSBD,

Winsor

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What part of "everything else" (your words) do you not understand?

(PS a lot of that waste came from your precious DoD).

Keep reading "everything else the government does" Stop playing semantics. Let me rephrase.... everything the government wastes money on....]

OK, but you actually wrote "Or just piss it away on everything else the Govt. does which far exceeds the money spent on the war". You haven't shown that the waste you cited exceeded the cost of the war Bush waged under false pretenses. Far from it.

Yes I did if you read the link..... that same string over and over... you cannot help it can you.

Anyway, the point is its all waste to me.

I think you misunderestimate the cost of Bush's war. When all is added up, including continuing healthcare for injured servicemen, it is well over $1 Trillion.

Quote

Ok Kall..... one more time. I do NOT like the waste!

Right, what you define as appropriate spending is not waste, what others want is waste; we get you.

Quote

The DoD needs to cut back as well.

Oh, how much? Not counting Iraq/AFG spending we match teh world, so what do ya think, we cut it in half? Or 10% and cut all social programs?

Quote

I am not a fan of war unless it needs to happen which I do believe SOMETIMES it does.

And you feel Iraq/AFG need to happen, so you are for war, right? Come on out and take a stance for once.

Quote

Stop making this about Bush.

Who provided BS intek to congress and pushed for war making it an unpatriotic move to vote againstg it? Who kept pushing for more war money?

Quote

The point is the US Govt. pisses money away every day.

And most of teh debt is directly atrributable to Reagan and GWB, indirectly virtually all of it.

Quote

Bush did it now Obama is doing it on a larger scale.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

Math not your strong suit? Or is it geometry? Should be easy to see that once again you're wrong.

Quote

It needs to STOP! Get my point yet?

Yes, tax cuts and kill all social programs.

Quote

There you are... I was starting to worry about you. I figured you were hiding bc of the market

Like I told you 7 months ago with your genius prediction that the market was oversold and would crash, IF YA HANG AROUND LONG ENOUGH, IT WILL HAPPEN. Sports touts do it to, clammer about a result and eventually it happens and they claim genius. Even after this Europe-initiated mini crash, the market, GDP, unemp is still better than under your hero - A LOT FUCKING BETTER.

Quote

So I skimmed through your response... pretty much the usual crap.

AKA cherry picked and avoided the tough stuff.

Quote

One thing I did notice though... the "take a stance" bit. I don't know how many times I have to say something to be demmed a stance but I feel the Iraq war over all was a waste. I think some positive things came out of it but it was a waste of tax money and more importantly ... American lives! The Afgan war or military Op. is necessary I think.

So you agree with Obama COMPLETELY then? That's his take too.

Quote

What's that I hear? Oh it's you balming Bush again....... wow... shocker. Your boy is racking up way more debt and faster than Ronnie or W did. You love him so much why can't you just acept that and admit it's true?

He inherited a balanced budget and a surplus, left teh worst economy since the Great Depression; why can't yopu admit thta? It took > 10 years to unfuck the GD, yet if Obama doesn't fix it in 2 weeks he's the devil.

Most of the cause now is not due to spending, it's due to hammered receipts. Unlike you, I will back that: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

See and as of the start of 09 to 2010 spending is shaded off and revs are up from massively down. Look at that fucking mess, either we raise taxes as Hoover did (not a bad idea) or we deficit spend. Or as you want, just let it fix itself. Since you guys whine about taxes, even tho they are damn near as low as they were in teh 1920's leading to the Great Depression, Obama won't touch that, so then we deficit spend. Ya can't have it all, higher taxes, deficit spend, cut the militayr in half; you pick. Or your choice, throw granny out in the street.

Quote

I mean Obama is doing what you want him to ... he is prionting money and pumping tax money in to social programs so I don't get why you deny its happening. I get you don't see it as waste but it is still happening.

What special programs? The militayr as you like? Sure he is. What special program? The stimulus? History not a strong point? Look what Hoover did - nothing - and it devastated us. 2.5 years later the biggest ever income tax in history; 25% to 63%.

Quote

P.s. What was that I said about the market? What did you say? Yup you still have no clue.

Missed you

I haven't gone anywhere, you ran and declined your own words, then 7 months later European trouble made you think teh US market was weak as it respoonded by losing what, 1100 points? And some of that was probably due to the error leading to shaky confidence. The market still is strong and I am very happy with its performance while you glaot it is falling.

Oh, and congratulations, even though you had to wait 7 months for a small dip, your dream of the US market falling is coming ot fruition you real American you. Now go get them shorts and hope for more American loss.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

Weasel all you want. The FACT remains that Bush's war was based on false pretenses and was (and continues to be) a monumental waste of money that could better have been spent improving the lives of Americans.

I noticed that you didn't answer the questions I asked.

I think Bush had the best intentions in mind.
He acted on the information that he had, and the reccomendations of his advisors.

He also might have drawn his deceisions from public statements of people like Gore and Clinton and Kerry.

It seems that he had quite a few more players, and (heavyweights at that) giving him unreliable information than just the one history prof in hypothetical I presented for you.

Wow. We've come pretty far from "The buck stops here." Sad, really.

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What part of "everything else" (your words) do you not understand?

(PS a lot of that waste came from your precious DoD).

Keep reading "everything else the government does" Stop playing semantics. Let me rephrase.... everything the government wastes money on....]

OK, but you actually wrote "Or just piss it away on everything else the Govt. does which far exceeds the money spent on the war". You haven't shown that the waste you cited exceeded the cost of the war Bush waged under false pretenses. Far from it.

Yes I did if you read the link..... that same string over and over... you cannot help it can you.

Anyway, the point is its all waste to me.

I think you misunderestimate the cost of Bush's war. When all is added up, including continuing healthcare for injured servicemen, it is well over $1 Trillion.

Quote

Ok Kall..... one more time. I do NOT like the waste!

Right, what you define as appropriate spending is not waste, what others want is waste; we get you.

Quote

The DoD needs to cut back as well.

Oh, how much? Not counting Iraq/AFG spending we match teh world, so what do ya think, we cut it in half? Or 10% and cut all social programs?

Quote

I am not a fan of war unless it needs to happen which I do believe SOMETIMES it does.

And you feel Iraq/AFG need to happen, so you are for war, right? Come on out and take a stance for once.

Quote

Stop making this about Bush.

Who provided BS intek to congress and pushed for war making it an unpatriotic move to vote againstg it? Who kept pushing for more war money?

Quote

The point is the US Govt. pisses money away every day.

And most of teh debt is directly atrributable to Reagan and GWB, indirectly virtually all of it.

Quote

Bush did it now Obama is doing it on a larger scale.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

Math not your strong suit? Or is it geometry? Should be easy to see that once again you're wrong.

Quote

It needs to STOP! Get my point yet?

Yes, tax cuts and kill all social programs.

Quote

There you are... I was starting to worry about you. I figured you were hiding bc of the market

Like I told you 7 months ago with your genius prediction that the market was oversold and would crash, IF YA HANG AROUND LONG ENOUGH, IT WILL HAPPEN. Sports touts do it to, clammer about a result and eventually it happens and they claim genius. Even after this Europe-initiated mini crash, the market, GDP, unemp is still better than under your hero - A LOT FUCKING BETTER.

Quote

So I skimmed through your response... pretty much the usual crap.

AKA cherry picked and avoided the tough stuff.

Quote

One thing I did notice though... the "take a stance" bit. I don't know how many times I have to say something to be demmed a stance but I feel the Iraq war over all was a waste. I think some positive things came out of it but it was a waste of tax money and more importantly ... American lives! The Afgan war or military Op. is necessary I think.

So you agree with Obama COMPLETELY then? That's his take too.

Quote

What's that I hear? Oh it's you balming Bush again....... wow... shocker. Your boy is racking up way more debt and faster than Ronnie or W did. You love him so much why can't you just acept that and admit it's true?

He inherited a balanced budget and a surplus, left teh worst economy since the Great Depression; why can't yopu admit thta? It took > 10 years to unfuck the GD, yet if Obama doesn't fix it in 2 weeks he's the devil.

Most of the cause now is not due to spending, it's due to hammered receipts. Unlike you, I will back that: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

See and as of the start of 09 to 2010 spending is shaded off and revs are up from massively down. Look at that fucking mess, either we raise taxes as Hoover did (not a bad idea) or we deficit spend. Or as you want, just let it fix itself. Since you guys whine about taxes, even tho they are damn near as low as they were in teh 1920's leading to the Great Depression, Obama won't touch that, so then we deficit spend. Ya can't have it all, higher taxes, deficit spend, cut the militayr in half; you pick. Or your choice, throw granny out in the street.

Quote

I mean Obama is doing what you want him to ... he is prionting money and pumping tax money in to social programs so I don't get why you deny its happening. I get you don't see it as waste but it is still happening.

What special programs? The militayr as you like? Sure he is. What special program? The stimulus? History not a strong point? Look what Hoover did - nothing - and it devastated us. 2.5 years later the biggest ever income tax in history; 25% to 63%.

Quote

P.s. What was that I said about the market? What did you say? Yup you still have no clue.

Missed you

I haven't gone anywhere, you ran and declined your own words, then 7 months later European trouble made you think teh US market was weak as it respoonded by losing what, 1100 points? And some of that was probably due to the error leading to shaky confidence. The market still is strong and I am very happy with its performance while you glaot it is falling.

Oh, and congratulations, even though you had to wait 7 months for a small dip, your dream of the US market falling is coming ot fruition you real American you. Now go get them shorts and hope for more American loss.

Same bullshit from you! Your rhetoric is worse than the 24 hr news channels.

Lucky just to let you know ... 7 months in the market is not that long at all. You make it sound like I said it could happen and a couple yrs later it moved down. 7 months and it gave up a ton of what it had climbed. The economy and market is a house of cards. Your boy is adding to the problems just like W did.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[SkyDekker 1,129]

Quote

I noticed that you didn't answer the questions I asked.

I think Bush had the best intentions in mind.
He acted on the information that he had, and the reccomendations of his advisors.

There is the difference.

I think Bush made it pretty clear he wanted to invade Iraq and the Intelligence Community was to come up with reasons to do so.

It would seem that all the intelligence gathering in favour of the war was pretty slim. Anybody remember "yellow cake". Anybody remember the fear mongering that took place, talk of mushroom clouds etc. at a State of the Union?

This war was sold to the American public by providing false intelligence and supressing intelligence that did not further "the cause".

Do you see the difference in global cooperation in the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq? Don't you think the reasoning and motivation for those wars has something to do with that?

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

Weasel all you want. The FACT remains that Bush's war was based on false pretenses and was (and continues to be) a monumental waste of money that could better have been spent improving the lives of Americans.

I noticed that you didn't answer the questions I asked.

I think Bush had the best intentions in mind.
He acted on the information that he had, and the reccomendations of his advisors.

He also might have drawn his deceisions from public statements of people like Gore and Clinton and Kerry.

It seems that he had quite a few more players, and (heavyweights at that) giving him unreliable information than just the one history prof in hypothetical I presented for you.

According to Cornelius Ryan, the Dutch Military Academy posed a problem to potential graduates. If you were to attack Arnhem from the South, would you take the longer route that skirted the treeline or would you make a bold dash across the dikes with the intention of catching the enemy with their pants down?

The candidates that chose the approach that offered cover and concealment passed, the ones that made the bold charge failed. Montgomery took the approach that would have kept him from becoming a Dutch 2nd Lieutenant.

At issue here is not whether one's motives were pure as much as whether the execution was, in fact, competent. It has been said that one is better served by a competent corrupt politician than an incompetent honest one, and GWB is incompetent by any standard.

One of the unfortunate realities of our political system is that someone with finely enough honed administrative skills to do a good job has close to no chance of being elected. We go to the polls humming Fleetwood Mac's "Tell Me Lies" to ourselves, and then take umbrage when it turns out the things we wanted to hear were not necessarily based in reality.

Over two thirds of the people we elect to public office have Law degrees. This course of study has no Math, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Business Administration or even History requirements, and the only use of Logic seen in the legal profession is the application of a long list of fallacies of relevance. Your average lawyer could not assemble a coherent syllogism by anything but accident.

Thus, we have people tasked to make momentus decisions who are singularly unsuited to the task. Whose fault is that? Ours.

Regardless of percieved justification, the level of incompetence shown by the last administration was appalling. You had a moron surrounded by syncophants, so the results were a foregone conclusion.

This administration is different - but no better in the end. I am reminded of the fact that a con man is usually his own first customer, and he typically believes the fantasy he constructs.

Thus, we are being led by arithmetic illiterates whose knowledge of History is marginal even by the standards of mediocrity of High Schools, and who have never had to make a payroll of balance a budget for real.

I actually find Obama less repellent than GWB, but that does not change the fact that neither of them possess any part of the background or skill set to successfully deal with the realities of our current economic and political situation. They are both entirely clueless, for very different reasons.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Dont forget both Clintons, Kerry, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy and on and on and on

way before Bush was even a candidate

Hmmm

Which one of them gave the order to invade? Which one of them is still claiming that the WMDs were there?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Dont forget both Clintons, Kerry, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy and on and on and on

way before Bush was even a candidate

Hmmm

Which one of them gave the order to invade? Which one of them is still claiming that the WMDs were there?

No claims they were there anymore including Bush
and all those listd voted to attack



Some wanted to before Bush was a canidated for Pres

Hmmmmmmm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dont forget both Clintons, Kerry, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy and on and on and on

way before Bush was even a candidate

Hmmm

Which one of them gave the order to invade? Which one of them is still claiming that the WMDs were there?

No claims they were there anymore including Bush
and all those listd voted to attack

No they did not. You need to read the wording of the resolution more carefully.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dont forget both Clintons, Kerry, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy and on and on and on

way before Bush was even a candidate

Hmmm

Which one of them gave the order to invade? Which one of them is still claiming that the WMDs were there?

No claims they were there anymore including Bush
and all those listd voted to attack

No they did not. You need to read the wording of the resolution more carefully.

You want the twist left spew you can go ahead.
The implication WAS VERY CLEAR until politics became involved.

And you know it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,404]

>and all those listd voted to attack

It's so cool to hear you relying on Clinton and Gore for support for your theories.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>and all those listd voted to attack

It's so cool to hear you relying on Clinton and Gore for support for your theories.

Gore?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Over two thirds of the people we elect to public office have Law degrees. This course of study has no Math, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Business Administration or even History requirements, and the only use of Logic seen in the legal profession is the application of a long list of fallacies of relevance. Your average lawyer could not assemble a coherent syllogism by anything but accident.

The average legislator in DC is far more qualified than the average citizen. The JD degree is preceded typically by a social science degree like Political Science, so yes, history is covered.

It's at the state level that the caliber can drop off substantially.

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

Over two thirds of the people we elect to public office have Law degrees. This course of study has no Math, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Business Administration or even History requirements, and the only use of Logic seen in the legal profession is the application of a long list of fallacies of relevance. Your average lawyer could not assemble a coherent syllogism by anything but accident.

The average legislator in DC is far more qualified than the average citizen. The JD degree is preceded typically by a social science degree like Political Science, so yes, history is covered.

It's at the state level that the caliber can drop off substantially.

The depth of knowledge exhibited by our Federal Legislative Branch shows why "social sciences" are more of a bad joke than anything.

It seems that chief amongst the job skills developed in the academic careers of our congressional leaders was cheating. It is apparent that people who focus on doing their homework are at a distinct disadvantage when going up against those whose only goal is winning at any cost.

Thus, when faced with a situation like we had prior to the incursion in Iraq, the people who made the decisions showed themselves to be those who got the necessary grades without bothering to familiarize themselves with the fundamentals. Anyone who had actually pursued a course of study that covered similar cases could (and did) point out that invasion was ill-considered, ill-advised, and that any "victory" so achieved would be Pyrrhic at best.

I reiterate that our Congress has the intellectual acuity of the Short Bus crowd, without any of their endearing qualities.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dont forget both Clintons, Kerry, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy and on and on and on

way before Bush was even a candidate

Hmmm

Which one of them gave the order to invade? Which one of them is still claiming that the WMDs were there?

No claims they were there anymore including Bush
and all those listd voted to attack

No they did not. You need to read the wording of the resolution more carefully.

You want the twist left spew you can go ahead.
The implication WAS VERY CLEAR until politics became involved.

Resolutions of Congress mean what the words in them say, not what you want them to say in hindsight. The resolution of which you write was NOT a vote to attack Iraq. The decision to attack was the CinC's and the CinC's alone.

Unfortunately for you, Marc, DZ.COM keeps an archive of posts you've made over the years. Your position on the war and the WMDs was even more ill informed than Bush's, because you kept up the WMD myth even after Bush had admitted the truth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The depth of knowledge exhibited by our Federal Legislative Branch shows why "social sciences" are more of a bad joke than anything.

I disagree with them doesn't translate to "they are idiots." Sorry.

Quote

Thus, when faced with a situation like we had prior to the incursion in Iraq, the people who made the decisions showed themselves to be those who got the necessary grades without bothering to familiarize themselves with the fundamentals. Anyone who had actually pursued a course of study that covered similar cases could (and did) point out that invasion was ill-considered, ill-advised, and that any "victory" so achieved would be Pyrrhic at best.

The invasion was done to get rid of Saddam. That worked well and quickly. They approved this, not because they were too dumb to understand the White House propaganda, but because they also wanted Saddam out, and so did the voters.

Nation building, yeah, that was a loser plan, promoted by Bush and oddly enough, insisted upon by many on the left, including notables here in SC, who asserted that we owed it to Iraq to leave them better than when the war started.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Nation building, yeah, that was a loser plan, promoted by Bush and oddly enough, insisted upon by many on the left, including notables here in SC, who asserted that we owed it to Iraq to leave them better than when the war started.

Who would that be? I'm not aware of any "on the left" in SC who promoted going to war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dont forget both Clintons, Kerry, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy and on and on and on

way before Bush was even a candidate

Hmmm

Which one of them gave the order to invade? Which one of them is still claiming that the WMDs were there?

No claims they were there anymore including Bush
and all those listd voted to attack

No they did not. You need to read the wording of the resolution more carefully.

You want the twist left spew you can go ahead.
The implication WAS VERY CLEAR until politics became involved.

Resolutions of Congress mean what the words in them say, not what you want them to say in hindsight. The resolution of which you write was NOT a vote to attack Iraq. The decision to attack was the CinC's and the CinC's alone.

Unfortunately for you, Marc, DZ.COM keeps an archive of posts you've made over the years. Your position on the war and the WMDs was even more ill informed than Bush's, because you kept up the WMD myth even after Bush had admitted the truth.

I have no problem with my posts
You on the other continue the lie that Bush did this by convincing others of the WMD's (which was talked about by many of your lefty heroes before Bush was even a candidate and say that what your same heroes voted on meant something they did not understand or the was lied to about
That makes them liars or idiots. You pick

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Nation building, yeah, that was a loser plan, promoted by Bush and oddly enough, insisted upon by many on the left, including notables here in SC, who asserted that we owed it to Iraq to leave them better than when the war started.

Who would that be? I'm not aware of any "on the left" in SC who promoted going to war.

billvon was among many (my mother as well) who believed in 2004 we couldn't leave, had to continue the nation building concept that failed so badly. Somewhere along the way they dropped that notion. A really cynical person might think they wanted the military to fail, in order to hurt the GOP.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nation building, yeah, that was a loser plan, promoted by Bush and oddly enough, insisted upon by many on the left, including notables here in SC, who asserted that we owed it to Iraq to leave them better than when the war started.

Who would that be? I'm not aware of any "on the left" in SC who promoted going to war.

billvon was among many (my mother as well) who believed in 2004 we couldn't leave, had to continue the nation building concept that failed so badly. Somewhere along the way they dropped that notion. A really cynical person might think they wanted the military to fail, in order to hurt the GOP.

I hate to break this to you, but we invaded in 2003, not 2004.

What do you think we should have done once we'd bombed the hell out of Iraq chasing a chimera? Said "Ooops, sorry", and buggered off leaving them to clean up the mess?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.