Iraqi War critic = Nazi appeaser per Don Rumsfield

[Hatfield]

why do people from either side say things this retarded?

Rumsfeld derides Iraq war critics
Equates them with Nazi-era appeasers

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis
Tribune Newspapers: The Baltimore Sun
Published August 30, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld unleashed one of the Bush administration's most caustic assaults yet on war critics Tuesday, comparing such critics to Nazi-era appeasers and ramping up the GOP election-year attack against Democrats over national security.

The verbal broadside is part of an emerging pattern in which President Bush, attempting to transform the war into a winning election theme for the Republican Party, is using surrogates to deliver the most stinging criticisms of Democrats while sticking to milder -- though no less disparaging -- rhetoric on the war himself.

Speaking to the American Legion's annual convention in Salt Lake City, Rumsfeld warned against "moral and intellectual confusion." He said that "some seem not to have learned history's lessons" as the nation confronts new threats. He did not mention any names.

"It seems that in some quarters, there is more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats."

Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failure to confront Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. He quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was "a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last."

"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," he said.

Bush is to speak Thursday before the American Legion.

Rumsfeld's remarks came as Vice President Dick Cheney was accusing unnamed critics of "self-defeating pessimism," the second time in two days he used that description. Earlier this month, Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, said Democrats were "obstacles" to national security.

Bush has been quick to lash out at those who question his strategy in Iraq, but he couches his objections in the loftier terms of a statesman. He recently denounced Democratic calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, but not before noting -- twice -- that they are "good, decent people." He told reporters last week he would never question the patriotism of his critics.

By arming Cheney, Rove and Ken Mehlman, the national Republican chairman, with cutting barbs and sending them into conservative strongholds, GOP strategists hope to stoke the enthusiasm of a conservative base that gives them high marks for keeping the country safe.

Bush's allies also hope it sows doubt among fence-sitters about Democrats' fitness to govern.

Democrats have worked to tie Bush to his surrogates' harsh statements. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, responding to Rumsfeld's speech in a statement Tuesday, said, "The Bush White House is more interested in lashing out at its political enemies and distracting from its failures than it is in winning the war on terror and in bringing an end to the war in Iraq."

[GDC]

Rumsfeld looks sort of Nazi-ish in this pic. Made me think of V for Vendetta.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/2006/060830_A2_Rumsf45316_a2Rums30.jpg

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

:pop:

[crawfish]

I'd really, really like a piece of pecan pie about now. Mmmmm......

[BoomerJack]

See my signature.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Why do you guys hate America?

Don't you know there's only one acceptable opinion endorsed by The State?

[jk the sooner fan]

well if the liberals can toss around the hitler references, then so can the conservatives.... :)

[NormanPride]

well if the liberals can toss around the hitler references, then so can the conservatives.... :)

[3 y/o]He started it![/3 y/o]

;)

[OklahomaTuba]

Heh, so basically he's calling libs Bush appeasers?

I wonder if the GOP will start running commericals using hitler now, like the dims did in 2004?

[OklahomaTuba]

hmmm...


AP takes the hatchet to Rumsfeld speech
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Interesting little side by side here. Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech to the American Legion. You can read it here. Robert Burns from AP reported on the speech. You can read it here. Below are some comparisons from the story and the speech.

What AP says Rumsfeld said:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."

What Rumsfeld said:
I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.

Today, another enemy — a different kind of enemy — has also made clear its intentions — in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.

We need to face the following questions:

* With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?

These are central questions of our time. And we must face them.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4496

Theres some more...

[NormanPride]

I didn't read the extended bit, but I don't really see the problem in the AP interpretation...

[OklahomaTuba]

I didn't read the extended bit, but I don't really see the problem in the AP interpretation...

Well, I guess if you consider he didn't say Iraqi war critics were nazi appeasers, but instead said this:


With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?

A very valid question BTW. One that most libz & "progressives" seem to have a problem answering.

[picasso]

I think he's simply saying some people are being just as stupid about the current threat.
I'd love to see Rumsie outta there but you're an idiot if you don't think terrorism is a real threat to the world.

[OklahomaTuba]

Why would you like to see him out of there?

I think his tenure has been very difficult, but he has been very successful in fighting the GWOT so far. I think his biggest problem was being saddled with a job the military wasn't designed to do in the first place (Low intensity urban warfare against un-uniformed terrorist insurgency). Beyond that, his defense department has done an excellent job. I think the casualty rate in this war is sitting about .25%. Historically, thats amazing. Even more so considering we are in the middle of two very troubled areas in the world.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think he's simply saying some people are being just as stupid about the current threat.
I'd love to see Rumsie outta there Huh? Why's that?

[Harry Beanbag]

I don't have a problem with what he said at all because I think he's right. I guess it just depends on your perspective.

If you're unable to look more than a couple of months into the future and realize what is going to happen, then you might not agree with what he said.
If all you care about is blaming Bush for everything bad that happens and getting democrats into office this fall and in '08, then you might not agree with what he said.

[mdklatt]

How shocking that a Bush official can't seem to see the difference between the GWOT and the Iraq War...the same official who once said that there was no apparent connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

:rolleyes:

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Yeah. No connection whatsoever.

Good thing there's no connection whatsoever, or else we mighta had to kill this Al Qaeda asshat in Freedomtown, USA instead of the Iraqi desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

[Harry Beanbag]

The Iraq war is part of the GWOT. Whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or not is irrelevant.

The GWOT is not a revenge fight against the perpetrators of 9/11, it is an all-inclusive global battle against terrorism. Hence the acronym GWOT.

[mdklatt]

Yeah. No connection whatsoever.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm


Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.





Good thing there's no connection whatsoever, or else we mighta had to kill this Al Qaeda asshat in Freedomtown, USA instead of the Iraqi desert.


Where was he before Iraq turned into a terrorist playground?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Hatfield starts a thread attacking Rumsfield and Tuba starts a thread attacking Chavez...all is right on the SO!!!!

[Octavian]

Huh? Why's that?

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –Donald Rumsfeld, on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, 2003.

[Okla-homey]

Rummy's right. The battle is joined. Can't quit now. It's irresponsible of any politician to maintain otherwise. All of recorded history bears out the fact appeasers get eaten.

Its working too. America. No successful jihaadi attacks since 9/11/01

That last part should be the bumper sticker for the next round of elections.

[mdklatt]

Its working too. America. No successful jihaadi attacks since 9/11/01



We went eight years without an attack before 9/11, most of that time under Clinton's watch. It's kinda soon to declare victory.

[sooner n houston]

Once again we see the blatent liberalism of the press. Another op-ed, complete with cut sentences and phrases, mascerading as a "story".
If you care to, read what Rummy said, then decide! I agree with every thing he said 100%!!!


In the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated--or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace--even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence in views of the world. Someone recently
recalled one U.S. Senator's reaction in September 1939, upon hearing
that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed: "Lord,
if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

Think of that!

I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of
challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today, another enemy--a different kind of enemy--has also made clear its intentions--in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons.

We need to face the following questions:
-With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?

- Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

- Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply "law enforcement" problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?

- And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America--not the enemy--is the real source of the world's trouble?

These are central questions of our time. And we must face them. . . .

But this is still--even in 2006--not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there is more of a focus on dividing our country, than acting with unity against the gathering threats.

We find ourselves in a strange time:
-When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who were punished for misconduct, than mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;

- When a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave
volunteers in our Armed Forces as a "mercenary army";
- When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists and the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief admits he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein's crimes when he was in power so CNN could stay in Iraq; and
- It is a time when Amnesty International disgracefully refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare, as "the gulag of our times."

Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths, and distortions being told about our troops and about our country.

The struggle we are in is too important--the consequences too severe--to have the luxury of returning to the old mentality of "Blame America First."

[Okla-homey]

We went eight years without an attack before 9/11, most of that time under Clinton's watch. It's kinda soon to declare victory.

Forgetting about those embassy bombings and USS Cole? Hmmmm?

Not declarin' just stating a fact. I'm also suggesting that if we stop actively and aggresively killing jihaadis in their sandbox, they'll be able to better focus their attention on CONUS. I know people are prolly tired of my "home" and "away" game analogy, but, it is what it is...and I'm certain it is an apt analogy.

[Jerk]

Forgetting about those embassy bombings and USS Cole? Hmmmm?



Not to mention the first WTC attack and the bombing of those barracks in Saudi.

[soonerspiff]

...I don't understand how people can still defend the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.


What would it take for you to consider it a failure? It's a country that's on the brink of a civil war...

[Okla-homey]

Not to mention the first WTC attack and the bombing of those barracks in Saudi.

That's libz for ya. Situational amnesia.;)

[Okla-homey]

...I don't understand how people can still defend the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.


What would it take for you to consider it a failure? It's a country that's on the brink of a civil war...

Simple. As long as those jihaadi bastages are dying over there, and no innocent Americans are dying over here, its going well. That's my scoreboard. Frankly, I don't give a two spits if those heathen bastages exterminate each other over Sunni v. Shiite crap.

[Jerk]

...I don't understand how people can still defend the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.


What would it take for you to consider it a failure? It's a country that's on the brink of a civil war...

The only failure is not kicking enough *** and being too politically correct. That crazy shi-ite militia mullah dude should be resting under a pile of rubble right now. We're holding back and not projecting enough force. But we are killin' alot of jihadees and that is a good thing.

[Blue]

...I don't understand how people can still defend the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.


What would it take for you to consider it a failure? It's a country that's on the brink of a civil war...

That war was all about positioning in the region. If you admit that, it's been a success.

[Hatfield]

That's libz for ya. Situational amnesia.;)


then would it be fair to mention the anthrax letters and the incendiary letters to the various state gov'ts.....or do we not like to consider those terrorist actions in order to parrot the "no attacks since 9/11" line?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...I don't understand how people can still defend the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.


What would it take for you to consider it a failure? It's a country that's on the brink of a civil war...it's not a failure until we cut and run and declare it a failure. I don't see the prez doing that just to appease the dims.

[SicEmBaylor]

So, William F. Buckley would qualify as a Nazi appeaser? What a joke.

[mdklatt]

Forgetting about those embassy bombings and USS Cole? Hmmmm?

Indonesia. London. Madrid. Is the GWOT considered successful as long as it's only our allies getting blowed up?


I'm also suggesting that if we stop actively and aggresively killing jihaadis in their sandbox, they'll be able to better focus their attention on CONUS. I know people are prolly tired of my "home" and "away" game analogy, but, it is what it is...and I'm certain it is an apt analogy.

I don't buy the "keep them busy in Iraq" argument. Was it our strategy all along to turn Iraq into a festering hotbed of terrorism? That certainly wasn't in the brochure. There were enough unoccupied jihadis to put together the London and Madrid bombings, and the recent airline plot. And to my knowledge, the disruption of the airline plot had nothing to do with Iraq.

[mdklatt]

Not to mention the first WTC attack

2001 - 1993 = ?

[soonerspiff]

it's not a failure until we cut and run and declare it a failure. I don't see the prez doing that just to appease the dims.


I'm not for cutting and running, but I guess you think Vietnam was a success until we pulled out, right?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not for cutting and running, but I guess you think Vietnam was a success until we pulled out, right?if you are somehow equating Vietnam and Iraq, you are SADLY mistaken!(you might want to claim you're a whorn)

[Okla-homey]

Indonesia. London. Madrid. Is the GWOT considered successful as long as it's only our allies getting blowed up?



I don't buy the "keep them busy in Iraq" argument. Was it our strategy all along to turn Iraq into a festering hotbed of terrorism? WTF cares? They're durkas. They enjoy it. Its kinda like OU/TX every day with those people, 'cept with guns and bombs. Trust me, I've been there. That certainly wasn't in the brochure. There were enough unoccupied jihadis to put together the London and Madrid bombings, and the recent airline plot. The airline plot was foiled by this administration, along with many others that don't make the news. And to my knowledge, the disruption of the airline plot had nothing to do with Iraq.

You're getting it. As long as that crap stays outside of North America...it's all good and the administration is aces with me.

[mdklatt]

That war was all about positioning in the region.

If so, our position in the region is hardly secure. We're too busy still fighting Iraqis to be able project a ground force somewhere else. The Air Force and Navy guys might be able to do something Syria or Iran if necessary, though.

[usmc-sooner]

I'm not for cutting and running, but I guess you think Vietnam was a success until we pulled out, right?


did we overthrow the government in Vietnam? Did they have an election during our tenure in Nam? No I don't think so.

md,

you fail to recocognize any terrorist events before Bush and somehow in your mind that makes Bush the idiot? :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

you fail to recocognize any terrorist events before Bush and somehow in your mind that makes Bush the idiot? :rolleyes:

Where did I do that?

[usmc-sooner]

If so, our position in the region is hardly secure. We're too busy still fighting Iraqis to be able project a ground force somewhere else. The Air Force and Navy guys might be able to do something Syria or Iran if necessary, though.

Once again you don't have a clue as to what your talking about when it comes to our military.

The U.S. Military is kept at a level that we can fight full fledged wars on fronts if necessary.

See WWII we were fighting in the European theatre and also the Pacific.

[soonerspiff]

did we overthrow the government in Vietnam? Did they have an election during our tenure in Nam? No I don't think so.

And we sure have done a great job establishing the Iraqi government...

[Okla-homey]

I'm not for cutting and running, but I guess you think Vietnam was a success until we pulled out, right?

Comparing apples and oranges man. Vietnam started out as a liberals fiesta and a manifestation of that whole "We are the world, Brotherhood of man, Age of Aquarius" mentality.

Started by Kennedy, ramped-up "Great Society" Johnson. At the height of the war, those two bastages got more American kids killed in a year than we've lost since 9/11 in Iraq and Asscrackistan combined.

Dick Nixon finally extricated us from that mess and I personally believe recent history treats him far too unkindly.

Charlie didn't attack America. However, the jihaadis did.

[usmc-sooner]

And we sure have done a great job establishing the Iraqi government...

wasn't our job or our mission. We freed them from a U.S. hating, brutal dictator, the government they get is their choice. We're just helping and trying to build their Army up enough so they can keep Iran from coming in and taking over.

but like most liberals you think Bush is going to wave his magic wand and make it all perfect if not lets just bitch and cry.

[mdklatt]

The U.S. Military is kept at a level that we can fight full fledged wars on fronts if necessary.



Was this before or after the involuntary call-ups?



See WWII we were fighting in the European theatre and also the Pacific.

We also had a draft.

[Okla-homey]

And we sure have done a great job establishing the Iraqi government...

D00d, you gotta understand, that's just PR crap for the masses. WTF cares?

[mdklatt]

but like most liberals you think Bush is going to wave his magic wand and make it all perfect if not lets just bitch and cry.

Yeah, you'd think the libz would have known not to listen to Bush when he was saying that in 2003.

[Jerk]

2001 - 1993 = ?

You said nothin' happened during the Clinton Admin, as if the whole world was holding hands and singing kumbuyah.


It was Clinton's "cut and run" in Somalia that led to the perception that the US is a paper tiger. We took 17 casualties and high tailed out of there. Osama saw this, and came to the conclusion that we have no stomach for a fight. And you know...maybe he's right.

Clinton didn't send any tanks to Mogodishu, maybe they were too busy in Waco. There would be no "blackhawk down' if a few M1A1 Abrams woulda been there, LIKE THE COMMANDER ON THE GROUND ASKED FOR, but was denied- thanks Les Aspen.

What was Clinton's response to the Cole bombings? Tomahawks. Do you not think that strengthened AQ's belief that we are weak? One fu** up after another. Now at least we have a prez with balls to go on the offensive.

[mdklatt]

D00d, you gotta understand, that's just PR crap for the masses. WTF cares?


The masses care when they realize they've been fed bull**** by their government.

[usmc-sooner]

Was this before or after the involuntary call-ups?


look please don't tell me that your dumb enough to believe that everyone is going to Iraq.

We've got huge numbers of US Military all over Europe, Japan, the Middle East, the Pacific Fleet, the Atlantic Fleet.

Also another thing you don't seem to understand about the involuntary call ups is that we signed up for them. You sign up for 4 active and 4 inactive, although you may be inactive it is made very clear up front that you can be called back at any time. It's a contract that we entered into without any deceit.

[Okla-homey]

Was this before or after the involuntary call-ups?




We also had a draft.

WTF does that have to do with this nations ability to fight a two-front war? That has been our avowed, published national military strategy since 1977. I am quite certain we can still do that.

Look around you? Does this nation here on the homefront look or feel like we are a nation at war in a desperate struggle for our very survival? I'll answer. Heck no! We got plenty of smash left in reserve and we won't need a draft either. To wit, we have achieved our recruiting goals consistently throughout the period.

When you start seeing rationing of commodities, 30% of GNP on defense and a fire-up of the draft, maybe you'll have something to worry about.

[usmc-sooner]

Yeah, you'd think the libz would have known not to listen to Bush when he was saying that in 2003.


yeah because Bush is so radically different than every President we've ever had.

Lord knows they didn't need me to deploy during the terrorist attacks under the Clinton Administration, or the Bosnian Conflict, or Somalia.

yeah you liberals have been fed a bunch a bull**** but it wasn't fed to you by Bush or the government it was fed to you by the liberal hippie peace morons of Hollywood that you guys worship.

[mdklatt]

You said nothin' happened during the Clinton Admin, as if the whole world was holding hands and singing kumbuyah.


Why do you hate reading comprehension?



We went eight years without an attack before 9/11, most of that time under Clinton's watch. It's kinda soon to declare victory.


1st WTC attack: Feb 26, 1993
2nd WTC attack: Sept 11, 2001

2001 - 1993 = ?

Arithmetic is the debil.

Here's something to chew on--if 9/11 was all Clinton's fault, then whose fault was the 1993 bombing? Clinton was in office only a month when that happened.

[Okla-homey]

The masses care when they realize they've been fed bull**** by their government.

Its a tired old movie cliche, but sometimes, you gotta tell people what they wanna hear.

Frankly, I think the masses would mind a lot more if they were being bombed by jihaadis.

[mdklatt]

Its a tired old movie cliche, but sometimes, you gotta tell people what they wanna hear.



Fine, but it's chicken**** to cry foul when people get ****ed off because you lied to them.

[Okla-homey]

yeah you liberals have been fed a bunch a bull**** but it wasn't fed to you by Bush or the government it was fed to you by the liberal hippie peace morons of Hollywood that you guys worship.

preach on bro.

Fortunately and perhaps paradoxically, as long as American men are willing go in harm's way, the freaks in Hollywood and the media elite will be free to spew their drivel. Meanwhile, guys like you will be TCB.

[Okla-homey]

Fine, but it's chicken**** to cry foul when people get ****ed off because you lied to them.

They are quite free to get p1ssy. They're still breathing though, and they may well have the GWOT to thank for it. Its too bad they are too ignorant and mind-numbed to figure that out.

[Octavian]

I'm not sure who said it but...

It's NOT a civil war.

Its just two different sects from the same country fighting against each other in their own country.

With us in the middle.

But...we have let people dip their thumbs in purple paint and choose which radical Muslim they want to represent them for the first time....

Even though aQ has continued carrying out strikes against Western targets, our international credibility has been blown to hell, bin Laden remains at-large, idiot leaders from Iran to Venezuela feel more empowered w/ us bogged down...the Bush Admn. has done okay.

Better than a Kucinich Admn. would've done.

But probably not as good as a group of 8th graders w/ access to the most basic Arabic history text books.

[mdklatt]

look please don't tell me that your dumb enough to believe that everyone is going to Iraq.

We've got huge numbers of US Military all over Europe, Japan, the Middle East, the Pacific Fleet, the Atlantic Fleet.


Does it matter where they're going? A shortage is a shortage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14468245/

"Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, estimated that there is a current shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming unit deployments."





Also another thing you don't seem to understand about the involuntary call ups is that we signed up for them. You sign up for 4 active and 4 inactive, although you may be inactive it is made very clear up front that you can be called back at any time. It's a contract that we entered into without any deceit.

I understand that, but the fact that we're doing it seems to fly in the face of people saying that everything is fine, we're meeting all our recruiting goals, etc.

[mdklatt]

They are quite free to get p1ssy.

Only if they're willing to be called "America haters", apparently.

[mdklatt]

yeah because Bush is so radically different than every President we've ever had.



So...it's okay for Bush to lie because everyone else does it? Or it's only okay for him to do it because you voted for him? :confused:

[Harry Beanbag]

This is making my head hurt. I've been reading the same ****ing thread for 4 years. Some people get it, some people don't. Broken record.

[Jerk]

Man, I could have sworn I read mdklatt say that we were never attacked during the Clinton Admin...

I need to start drinking again.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's not the Iraqi Civil War!!!
It's the freaking War Between the Tribes!

[mdklatt]

Man, I could have sworn I read mdklatt say that we were never attacked during the Clinton Admin...

I need to start reading what he actually said instead of pulling out my Jump To Conclusions Mat again.

When was the last terrorist attack on US soil before 2001?

[usmc-sooner]

liberal logic = under Bush we've taken down Hussein, his sons, A-Z, thrwarted many terrorists plans and cells and it's a failure. I guess they must have really hated the liberal leadership before Bush since he did significantly less.
Damn I'm glad I'm not liberal.

and md you keep talking about Bush lying, I don't think he did. If he has lied well just feel free to cast the first stone if you are without sin.
Your logic makes no sense. You have arguements shot down and you just keep on spinning and switching tell you've come back to the ol Bush lied liberal arguement. Liar liar pants on fire.

[soonerspiff]

Um, I don't think any of our lies have ever lead to a war being fought, or at least not one in which people are killed.

[mdklatt]

and md you keep talking about Bush lying, I don't think he did.


Before the invasion (and for a good while after), did Bush EVER say we should expect Iraq to devolve into mass chaos requiring extensive military involvement and expenditures of money for who knows how long? He was either mistaken or he lied.




Your logic makes no sense.

To you, obviously.



You have arguements shot down


Such as?

[usmc-sooner]

Um, I don't think any of our lies have ever lead to a war being fought, or at least not one in which people are killed.


well I don't think Bush lied.

and to be honest your not important enough for your lies to matter so it's apples and oranges. And if you don't see the same information the President of the United States sees, and you want to call him a liar that probably makes you less than smart.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Simple. As long as those jihaadi bastages are dying over there, and no innocent Americans are dying over here, its going well. That's my scoreboard.
Last time I saw the number "2637" was the number of innocent Americans that have died BECAUSE we are in Iraq. Including 3 Marines just the other day that will never EVER get to see their mother, wife, or kids ever again. So the theory that we are protecting ourselves over here by killing them over there also serves the counter point that we are killing ourselves over there to prop up a government that will never work. Iraq has never shown itself to be even a tenth of the threat to the global community like Korea and Iran(or even a Venezuela or Syria if you want to get technical). Let's face it, Bush was going to destroy Iraq and he didn't care why or how. We would be better off using all of the troops in Iraq to guard our borders(thus limiting the possibility of a rogue Arab sneaking in that way), We could put 5 to 10 soldiers on commercial airlines, that would have been a deterrent for hijackers, and we would have more ability to intimidate Iran at the moment if 75% of our soldiers weren't tied up in a babysitting venture of millions of Shiites and Muslims.

[usmc-sooner]

[QUOTE=mdklatt]Before the invasion (and for a good while after), did Bush EVER say we should expect Iraq to devolve into mass chaos requiring extensive military involvement and expenditures of money for who knows how long? He was either mistaken or he lied.
QUOTE]

or perhaps he doesn't have a crystal ball and can't predict the future. That is one of the dumbest things I've read.

let's see did Clinton predict we'd still be in Bosnia today? Did Bush 1 predict that we'd have to go back and spank Iraq's *** 10 years later? Did Kennedy predict that Vietnam might go bad. Did they predict Japan bombing Pearl Harbor?

Your life is so war torn and a miserable hell. Poor you I mean life is such a bitch for you under this war that you get to post on the internet and criticize your President during a time of war. Oh the horror. I'd say you ought to thank Bush for keeping this war from affecting your complaining ***.

[soonerspiff]

well I don't think Bush lied.

and to be honest your not important enough for your lies to matter so it's apples and oranges. And if you don't see the same information the President of the United States sees, and you want to call him a liar that probably makes you less than smart.


That's what I was trying to say. We can lie about things and it's not a big deal because it doesn't affect as many people. But when the President says things to the American public that are contrary to the intelligence data he has been given (i.e. lies), that affects all of us. I think even FOX news agrees that he lied but for some reason a lot of Republicans still don't care.

[mdklatt]

or perhaps he doesn't have a crystal ball and can't predict the future.



Uh, that would be "mistaken".

[usmc-sooner]

Last time I saw the number "2637" was the number of innocent Americans that have died BECAUSE we are in Iraq. Including 3 Marines just the other day that will never EVER get to see their mother, wife, or kids ever again. So the theory that we are protecting ourselves over here by killing them over there also serves the counter point that we are killing ourselves over there to prop up a government that will never work. Iraq has never shown itself to be even a tenth of the threat to the global community like Korea and Iran(or even a Venezuela or Syria if you want to get technical). Let's face it, Bush was going to destroy Iraq and he didn't care why or how. We would be better off using all of the troops in Iraq to guard our borders(thus limiting the possibility of a rogue Arab sneaking in that way), We could put 5 to 10 soldiers on commercial airlines, that would have been a deterrent for hijackers, and we would have more ability to intimidate Iran at the moment if 75% of our soldiers weren't tied up in a babysitting venture of millions of Shiites and Muslims.

well let's pull the military out. I'm looking at a probable second tour over there soon. You think I want to go. But let's get out. Come back home. Let the civilians deal with this **** when they start bombing over here because we are not occupying their time, soldiers and funds fighting them in the mid east. It won't take long before you guys are screaming about Bush not keeping the fight in the mid east.

[usmc-sooner]

That's what I was trying to say. We can lie about things and it's not a big deal because it doesn't affect as many people. But when the President says things to the American public that are contrary to the intelligence data he has been given (i.e. lies), that affects all of us. I think even FOX news agrees that he lied but for some reason a lot of Republicans still don't care.


OK I'll concede to your point, if you just reference what intell data he saw and lied about. I can promise that no news station gets that intell, no matter how much they sell it to the overly gullable public.

So you show me the intell, what it said, and where he lied. So I'll be waiting for the info on the intell the president saw, that you have also seen from what source, and what time and then you can point out where the President made a decision and decided to just say oh the hell with it, I'll just lie, heck it worked out so well with Clinton.

[usmc-sooner]

When was the last terrorist attack on US soil before 2001?


I can tell you about an attack in 2001 that wouldn't have happened had Clinton not turned Bin Ladin loose, or had acted like a CIC when AQ attacked our Navy.

[soonerspiff]

Ok, I did a quick 2 minute google search and pulled up this speech by Bush:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

And then this site about documents Bush had on Iraq:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs


I'm sure, if I spent some time and did some real research I'd find some more stuff for you, but I just don't care enough. Obviously, you're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what. Some people don't take to logic and reasoning well. To each his own!


By the way, I haven't read that site yet, so if it's info isn't that great, again I apologize.

[OklahomaTuba]

That's what I was trying to say. We can lie about things and it's not a big deal because it doesn't affect as many people. But when the President says things to the American public that are contrary to the intelligence data he has been given (i.e. lies), that affects all of us. I think even FOX news agrees that he lied but for some reason a lot of Republicans still don't care.

What did he lie about?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

well let's pull the military out. I'm looking at a probable second tour over there soon. You think I want to go. But let's get out. Come back home. Let the civilians deal with this **** when they start bombing over here because we are not occupying their time, soldiers and funds fighting them in the mid east. It won't take long before you guys are screaming about Bush not keeping the fight in the mid east.

Did I EVER say we should pull out...if I did...it was a mistake. I am saying that IF we hadn't gotten involved in the first place, we would have more chips to strategically deal with Iran and Korea. I am saying that I would rather have our soldiers over here doing protection issues. Are you saying that those dead 2637 soldiers wouldn't have been a good border security group. Our soldiers are the best in the business, they do the best good they can regardless. They are over there and I support them and in all honesty, I don't care one **** if Iraq ever gets stable. Iraq is less stable now than when Saddam was in charge...but to be fair Germany was also less stable after Hitler died. Does it not seem like fear mongering to say that if we weren't in Iraq, that the streets would be running red with American blood and Iraqi tanks would be rolling down Time Square? I am just saying, I don't necessarily agree with the administration for going into Iraq, however, I also don't have the resources they do so perhaps I am just mistaken. And the YOU GUYS thing....please NEVER EVER lump me with the defeatist left EVER again thank you ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

Before the invasion (and for a good while after), did Bush EVER say we should expect Iraq to devolve into mass chaos requiring extensive military involvement and expenditures of money for who knows how long? He was either mistaken or he lied.

I guess Clinton was lying then when he signed this Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and said this:

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

[usmc-sooner]

Ok, I did a quick 2 minute google search and pulled up this speech by Bush:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

And then this site about documents Bush had on Iraq:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs


I'm sure, if I spent some time and did some real research I'd find some more stuff for you, but I just don't care enough. Obviously, you're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what. Some people don't take to logic and reasoning well. To each his own!


By the way, I haven't read that site yet, so if it's info isn't that great, again I apologize.

so this is your big intell lie that the President made. You know for a fact, that you saw the same intell and heard from the same advisor's as the President, PS you can't google up Top Secret Classified material. If you think you can then you are exactly right some people don't take to logic and reasoning well. Maybe you can google me up some top secret info on the Aliens at area 51. You think you can google up information on real life vampires as well?

You guys don't know what your talking about. Your not even using common sense, but why try just bitch and moan.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well to be fair, Chinese Google would have probably brought up some Top Classified Material during the Clinton era ;)

[soonerspiff]

Yes, I know this. But if there were documents to support the presence of WMD, don't you think the administration would be like, "Hey, wait!!! We do have proof!!!" just to regain the trust of the American people?

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

[usmc-sooner]

Yes, I know this. But if there were documents to support the presence of WMD, don't you think the administration would be like, "Hey, wait!!! We do have proof!!!" just to regain the trust of the American people?

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

hey if taking down Hussein, Al Zaquari, toppling the the Taliban and numerous other terrorists, while dealing with Hurricanes, liberal protestors and such forth doesn't get you respect then what else can you do?

they've found WMD, it's been reported. Now liberals when confronted with this always spin it to, well it wasn't enough, or something stupid. Fact is Hussein had weapons he wasn't supposed to have. That's why we went in. I mean Hussein was putting out hits on American civilians and not mention the President's family. Yeah he wasn't a threat to the U.S.

maybe you are an idiot:D <---------joking, don't take that the wrong way.

[soonerspiff]

No worries.


But actually, I found this site which is pretty interesting:

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/


"I don't think they existed. I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and those were a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them. I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production, and that's what we're really talking about, is large stockpiles, not the small. Large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the period after '95." - John Kay, former weapons Inspector (Jan 23, 2004)

[PhilTLL]

I guess Clinton was lying then when he signed this Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and said this:


http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Clinton being wrong doesn't make Bush less wrong. This isn't a valid argument.

[mdklatt]

I guess Clinton was lying then when he signed this Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and said this:


If he didn't really believe that he was lying. Or else he could have been mistaken. Just like Bush.

Is it so hard to admit that things in Iraq aren't going as planned?

[usmc-sooner]

Clinton being wrong doesn't make Bush less wrong. This isn't a valid argument.

actually I don't think this is what he was implying. I think he was just stating an obvious fact that our intelligence thought this to be true. So neither Clinton or Bush were caught in a lie.

comprehension and common sense go a long way

[usmc-sooner]

If he didn't really believe that he was lying. Or else he could have been mistaken. Just like Bush.

Is it so hard to admit that things in Iraq aren't going as planned?

so what's the plan? we walked through their Army like a hot knife through butter, removed a brutal dictator, allowed the people of Iraq to vote, taken down some of the top terrorist in the world. Everything I've ever heard Bush say always states this is going to be a long drawn out and messy affair. I think we are doing as well if not better than can be expected. Just because you label these accomplishments as failures doesn't make it so.

[Octavian]

so what's the plan? we walked through their Army like a hot knife through butter, removed a brutal dictator, allowed the people of Iraq to vote, taken down some of the top terrorist in the world. Everything I've ever heard Bush say always states this is going to be a long drawn out and messy affair. I think we are doing as well if not better than can be expected. Just because you label these accomplishments as failures doesn't make it so.

The point of post-9/11 American leadership should be to make the United States people safer and the Bush Admn. policies have not done that.

This administration: hasn't secured the landlocked borders, tried to sell as many as 7 major US ports to the United Arab Emirates, initially opposed the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

We walked through the Iraqi regulars like butter. We then performed a decaf version of de-Nazification, released Baathists back into the general for them to take up arms against us. We've made more enemies in Iraq than friends.

I like that Saddam and his two bitchass sons are gone....but we didn't have to occupy the whole country to accomplish that.

The ability of Iraqis being able to go to polling places and choose the greater of two evils is not progress. Democracy is not the answer to this problem and quite frankly it's odd that the party leadership who isn't that fond of increased domestic democratization would be so eager to treat it as a vaccine for global terrorism.

Those people want/need democracy like I need/want to find out I knocked up a dirty stripper from last weekend.

You either nuke all the bastards or play it smart, pick your battles, and stay flexible and strong on all fronts.

We've done neither.

From what I've seen, the major accomplishment of the Bush Admn. was to replace SCOTUS moderates w/ arch-conservatives....so at least when our debt-strained grandhildren watch the Tuesday morning news of an American city being nuked some far-off day, at least they'll take comfort knowing a woman isn't aborting a fetus or two kweers aren't legally kissing.

edit: the only reason they've been allowed to be this terrible and stay in power is because their opposition party is about as competent as 1980s KState

[Harry Beanbag]

When was the last terrorist attack on US soil before 2001?


April 19, 1995 :pop:

[Octavian]

I guess Clinton was lying then when he signed this Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and said this:


http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Tuba = bigtime SlickWilly fan.

I knew it...

[Octavian]

April 19, 1995 :pop:

why do you hate racial profiling? ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

why do you hate racial profiling? ;)


Because it's.....bad? ;)

[JohnnyMack]

edit: the only reason they've been allowed to be this terrible and stay in power is because their opposition party is about as competent as 1980s KState

Why do you hate Jim Dickey?

[Octavian]

Why do you hate Jim Dickey?

It's the phaggish name....

































Jim.

[OklahomaTuba]

The point of post-9/11 American leadership should be to make the United States people safer and the Bush Admn. policies have not done that.
Must be why we can't stop those terrorists from killing us here in the US now. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html)

Oh, wait... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html)

Facts sure do suck.

[OklahomaTuba]

Clinton being wrong doesn't make Bush less wrong. This isn't a valid argument.
Or Lordy, don't tell me you really posted this.

hahahahaha

[OklahomaTuba]

Ok, I did a quick 2 minute google search and pulled up this speech by Bush:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

And then this site about documents Bush had on Iraq:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs


I'm sure, if I spent some time and did some real research I'd find some more stuff for you, but I just don't care enough. Obviously, you're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what. Some people don't take to logic and reasoning well. To each his own!


By the way, I haven't read that site yet, so if it's info isn't that great, again I apologize.

The downing street memo???!?! You have got to be kidding me.

People actually still believe that BS? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Good luck with that dude.

BTW, you should read the whitehouse link. Its pretty much spot on factual history of Iraq and why we are there.

Maybe before you believe what your just going to believe, you should use some actual facts to back up your argument.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba = bigtime SlickWilly fan.

I knew it...

Just like Kerry, he was for it, before he was against it.


Of course, once the going got tough, the libz got going.

[Octavian]

There is not ONE single piece of anti-Bush evidence that a right-wing blog or the White House wouldn't refute...

At which point Tuba would bring up a biased link and act shocked that the entire world (except for him, bloggers like him, and the White House spin team) didnt already accept as established historical fact and anyone who didn't have wet dreams about tax cuts and church services (however contradictory the two terms may be...) must be a Hollyweird resident.

Q: How's your day?

A: It's a wonderful day today because our grand exalted leader made the sun rise again...hang on while I find a link.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why do you hate reading comprehension?




1st WTC attack: Feb 26, 1993
2nd WTC attack: Sept 11, 2001

2001 - 1993 = ?

Arithmetic is the debil.

Here's something to chew on--if 9/11 was all Clinton's fault, then whose fault was the 1993 bombing? Clinton was in office only a month when that happened.I believe the point is that it's either stupid or malicious to blame 9/11 on Bush.

[PhilTLL]

Or Lordy, don't tell me you really posted this.

hahahahaha

"Or Lordy," mdklatt said "Bush was wrong about/at least underestimated Iraq's likelihood of turning into a cluster****" to which you replied "Clinton thought it wouldn't either" - and ignoring the fact that one was stating a PC opinion that he'd "look forward to a democratic Iraq" in a speech after signing a toothless moral support act and the other used the assurances of sweet-talking exiles/other flawed intelligence to tear the lid off the whole crazy can, your actual point in mentioning Clinton escapes me.

So it's still not a coherent argument. Or, in your own convincing terms, "don't tell me you really posted that laffo lolz".

[LosAngelesSooner]

Now what is this thread all about?

[Jerk]

When was the last terrorist attack on US soil before 2001?

You went back and edited that after I read it?

Didn't you?

DIDN'T YOU!

(;

[sooner n houston]

Now what is this thread all about?

The lying liberal media, how they distort and twist conservative people's words to make it look like they said things they did not say and call it journalism instead of opinion!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I believe the point is that it's either stupid or malicious to blame 9/11 on Bush.

I believe it is beyong IGNORANT to blame anyone but a certain group of people that are currently facing a torture so horrible in a place I personally hope to never visit. They are the only ones to blame. Clinton, Bush, and any one but the terrorist can not have part of the blame. We as Americans need to stop the blame game. IF Clinton knew 9/11 was coming...he would have stopped it. No matter how much you hate that man to say otherwise is ignorant. IF Bush knew 9/11 was coming...he would have stopped it. No matter how much you hate the man to say otherwise is ignorant. Look at these Presidents when they leave office...they look like old and beaten men. Can you imagine having your decisions effecting the lives of so many people. That is one of the things I have always loved about Bush...he does seem to care, like just maybe he really is trying to make things better, and it is easy to forgive mistakes if someone is trying to do what they think is best.

[JohnnyMack]

Now what is this thread all about?

Libz killing kittens with lawn mowers. What else?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I give you Miss Hammasa Kohistani

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Hammasa_np6.jpg

Remember before you hate all Muslims...this is Miss England and she is in fact Muslim ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

your actual point in mentioning Clinton escapes me.
Ok, i'll make it easy for you then.

You (and others) seem to think Bush somehow LIED about this whole Iraq thing.

Well, if Bush lied about it, so did Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act is one part of this, but so are some other things ironically ignored by libz, which is history.

If Bush lied about Iraq having WMD, then why did Clinton say this 3 years before Bush was in the Whitehouse and 5 years before the Iraq war?


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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Oh Snap!

:pop:

[OklahomaTuba]

Bill Clinton - Modern Day Prophet.


In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Yep but using Clinton as a source is like asking Dolemite to spell check an essay...more than likely it is going to be wrong ;)

[Hatfield]

for the record i didn't cause all this crazy

i rule.

[mdklatt]

If Bush lied about Iraq having WMD, then why did Clinton say this 3 years before Bush was in the Whitehouse and 5 years before the Iraq war?


Well if Bill Clinton said it once, it must be true--regardless of any contradictory information that surfaces in the following years. You know, like the fact that we haven't actually found any WMD caches. The administration was either mistaken, or it lied.

[picasso]

Well if Bill Clinton said it once, it must be true--regardless of any contradictory information that surfaces in the following years. You know, like the fact that we haven't actually found any WMD caches. The administration was either mistaken, or it lied.
are we still going over this stupid argument?

you either think the intelligence was bad.
or you think the WMD were moved (we all know Saddam had some form of said weapon).
or you think Bush simply lied.

I heard it mentioned today that one person thinks its all been a master plan to get Iran when the getting is good.

who knows.

[soonerscuba]

Personally, I really look forward the artful way in which the Republican PR team is going to shift blame for Iraq upon the Dems if they win the House and White House. Keep in mind that despite my policy opinions, a little part of me loves to watch Rove do what he does best.

BTW, simply put you are high on glue if you think Iraq is currently a successful implementation of foreign policy.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I haven't posted yet, but it reads pretty much as expected - Bush haters hate Bush (and, thus, by definition are faggy), Bush lovers love Bush (and are, by definition, heterosexual).

Personally, I like what Rumsfeld said. Then again, I like what Rumsfeld says almost 117% of the time. War on the Baalists!

[GDC]

My b-i-l is Army and he says he have to keep taking the fight to them on their turf, to keep them off of ours. How long can we afford to do this before we go broke?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

My b-i-l is Army and he says he have to keep taking the fight to them on their turf, to keep them off of ours. How long can we afford to do this before we go broke?How broke will we ALL be if the terrorists renew killing people here in the US, and our economy totally collapses?

[GDC]

I am seriously considering signing up before I turn 42 in February. I may not get to actually kill some camel-jockeys, but I can still assist in some way.

[OklahomaTuba]

My b-i-l is Army and he says he have to keep taking the fight to them on their turf, to keep them off of ours. How long can we afford to do this before we go broke?

A direct result of 9/11 was the loss of over 1 millions jobs and the near collapse of the stock market.

That was ONE day of attacks.

3 years into Iraq, and the economy is booming.

[LosAngelesSooner]

The lying liberal media, how they distort and twist conservative people's words to make it look like they said things they did not say and call it journalism instead of opinion!

What about the lying conservative media mouthpieces who simply reiterate the far right's talking points, with no regard for actual research or truth or fact, with the intent of misleading their base and swaying the populace of the country even further right so that the interests of big business and the extremely wealthy can be accomplished at the general population's expense?

:pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ok, i'll make it easy for you then.

You (and others) seem to think Bush somehow LIED about this whole Iraq thing.

Well, if Bush lied about it, so did Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act is one part of this, but so are some other things ironically ignored by libz, which is history.

If Bush lied about Iraq having WMD, then why did Clinton say this 3 years before Bush was in the Whitehouse and 5 years before the Iraq war?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Oh Snap!

:pop:

But Bush DID lie.

[LosAngelesSooner]

How broke will we ALL be if the terrorists renew killing people here in the US, and our economy totally collapses?

Because...that was like...a daily occurance...and stuff.

I mean...before Bush came to save us...the U.S. was like...Israel...and stuff.

:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

A direct result of 9/11 was the loss of over 1 millions jobs and the near collapse of the stock market.

That was ONE day of attacks.

3 years into Iraq, and the economy is booming.

Booming?

LMAO

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ah...I forgot how many ostriches live here on the S.O.

:rolleyes:











:pop::pop::pop::pop::pop::pop:

[PhilTLL]

If Bush lied about Iraq having WMD, then why did Clinton say this 3 years before Bush was in the Whitehouse and 5 years before the Iraq war?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Oh Snap!

:pop:

Sweet Lord, why do you haphazardly raise points and not follow them to conclusion? mdklatt: "Bush underestimated Iraq's overwhelmingly obvious chances of turning into a cluster**** if we removed Saddam." You: "Clinton thought they were civilized enough to rule themselves too." Me: "What does that have to do with it?" You: "But Clinton and WMD!!" :confused:

"If Bush lied then so did Clinton". Perhaps, but one of them started a war on the incorrect assumptions and questionable intelligence, and the other, as is so often noted, just talked a lot. Those two missteps are of vastly different degrees of severity, regional impact, and consequences for us and Iraq. Some dishonesty is slightly less important than others.

[Harry Beanbag]

Ah...I forgot how many ostriches live here on the S.O.

:rolleyes:











:pop::pop::pop::pop::pop::pop:




You got that right. Of course I don't think we're talking about the same flock.

[Harry Beanbag]

Because...that was like...a daily occurance...and stuff.

I mean...before Bush came to save us...the U.S. was like...Israel...and stuff.

:rolleyes:


Does it need to be a daily occurance to be a problem? I think once is enough.

[Vaevictis]

D00d, you gotta understand, that's just PR crap for the masses. WTF cares?

Actually, anyone who wants to win a protracted conflict cares. Democracies can't effectively wage a war when public opinion turns against the war. Lying/stretching the truth/etc to get the democracy involved tends to accelerate the timetable on which that occurs.

----

And as far as the "jihaadi attacks on American soil" scorecard goes, don't get too happy. Sooner or later, Al-Qaeda is going to get the point that large coordinated attacks on hardened targets just aren't going to be efficient anymore. Our success on that front has as much to do with Al-Qaeda's failure to realize this as it does with our own capability.

They'll eventually get the point that a small one or two person cell working on its own initiative directed at targets of opportunity will slip through undetected most of the time, and that a group of small self-directed cells are still capable of the wiz-bang-flashiness that Al-Qaeda wants. They'll also eventually realize that there is NO END to the trouble they could cause by sending over black Muslims (in order to exploit our black/white racial issues) instead of Arab/Persian ones.

(as an aside, can you IMAGINE the ****fest that would go down after the first black terrorists started getting off attacks, or hell -- even getting caught trying to?)

[Harry Beanbag]

They'll eventually get the point that a small one or two person cell working on its own initiative directed at targets of opportunity will slip through undetected most of the time, and that a group of small self-directed cells are still capable of the wiz-bang-flashiness that Al-Qaeda wants. They'll also eventually realize that there is NO END to the trouble they could cause by sending over black Muslims (in order to exploit our black/white racial issues) instead of Arab/Persian ones.


This is extremely worrisome.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Does it need to be a daily occurance to be a problem? I think once is enough.

Just pointing out another example of fear mongering through the use of overexaggeration.

That is all.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You got that right. Of course I don't think we're talking about the same flock. How's that sand taste?

[Vaevictis]

This is extremely worrisome.

No kidding. Remember Rodney King and the LA riots of 1992?

Imagine if there was a terrorist cell consisting of armed black Muslims dedicated to making the situation worse. Or cells in other cities dedicated to spreading the chaos?

And they could even cause another Rodney King like incident by repeatedly sending out black terrorists to provoke the police, with others nearby recording video footage.

Bad stuff.

[usmc-sooner]

Does it need to be a daily occurance to be a problem? I think once is enough.


no ****

[Harry Beanbag]

Just pointing out another example of fear mongering through the use of overexaggeration.

That is all.


Actually, I thought bill favor had a valid point, not simple fear mongering. 9/11 crippled our economy. It won't take very many of those to hurt us badly.

[Harry Beanbag]

How's that sand taste?


I live in the desert, I'm used to it. ;)

How is your's?

[Okla-homey]

What about the lying conservative media mouthpieces who simply reiterate the far right's talking points, with no regard for actual research or truth or fact, with the intent of misleading their base and swaying the populace of the country even further right so that the interests of big business and the extremely wealthy can be accomplished at the general population's expense?

:pop:

So what's the problem? Who really wants the "general population" in charge of anything anyway? Remember, these are people who pay money to phone-in votes in "American Idol" competitions but don't care enough to vote in real elections for free.;)

[usmc-sooner]

What about the lying conservative media mouthpieces who simply reiterate the far right's talking points, with no regard for actual research or truth or fact, with the intent of misleading their base and swaying the populace of the country even further right so that the interests of big business and the extremely wealthy can be accomplished at the general population's expense?

:pop:

so what about the insanely rich(left wing liberals) who have no regard for actual research or truth or fact, with the intent of misleading their base and swaying the populace of the country even further left so that the interests of big business and the extremely wealthy can be accomplished at the general population's expesnse?

[LosAngelesSooner]

I live in the desert, I'm used to it. ;)

How is your's?

Tastes like...freedom.

[LosAngelesSooner]

so what about the insanely rich(left wing liberals) who have no regard for actual research or truth or fact, with the intent of misleading their base and swaying the populace of the country even further left so that the interests of big business and the extremely wealthy can be accomplished at the general population's expesnse?

Name one.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

George Soros.

What do I win?

[picasso]

Name one.
George Soros.

but, you wouldn't know that. you're a republican.

[picasso]

George Soros.

What do I win?
hahahaha

the d*** doesn't even live in the continental USA.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Is it coincidence that the first two near-instantaneous replies came back with the same hellagazillionaire?

That's an unsolved mystery even Eliot Ness couldn't solve.

[picasso]

Just pointing out another example of fear mongering through the use of overexaggeration.

That is all.
that sounds like a Democrat type tactic. scaring old people and poor folks and stuff.
and don't forget them poor chillen.

[picasso]

Is it coincidence that the first two near-instantaneous replies came back with the same hellagazillionaire?

That's an unsolved mystery even Eliot Ness couldn't solve.
that fella is trying to sell this country down the river. and by river I mean s*** river.
why doesn't he donate some of that coin to some useful causes like actually those dedicated to helping people out.
and don't forget the poor chillen.

[GrapevineSooner]

I don't think pointing out that Islamofascists want to impose their way of life on everyone in the Western world is an overexaggeration.

[Harry Beanbag]

Tastes like...freedom.


Oh please, get over yourself. :rolleyes:

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I's did it fo de chilluns!

[SCOUT]

Name one.
How about Michael Moore?

[Harry Beanbag]

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, etc.

[picasso]

I don't think pointing out that Islamofascists want to impose their way of life on everyone in the Western world is an overexaggeration.
yes yes it is. they are really a peace loving type of people. just because a few extremists go a little crazy now and then let's not get worried here. I mean look at them Christians that bombed those abortion clinics. they want to take over the world too!;)

[GrapevineSooner]

George Soros.

What do I win?

Yup.

Ever heard of Media Matters?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

So which party is the fear mongering party again?

[picasso]

crickets chirping.




Ah...I forgot how many ostriches live here on the S.O.

:rolleyes:


:D

[picasso]

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, etc.
John Kerry? he's poor, his old lady doesn't have any money! not as much as the Bushies.:rolleyes:
and Al Gore? would ya believe his old man made his money in .....gulp, oil?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Just pointing out another example of fear mongering through the use of overexaggeration.

That is all.

PRESIDENT BUSH CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING CREATING HURRICANE KATRINA WHICH HE USED TO DESTROY THE LIVES OF POOR NEW ORLEANS-ERS-ES-ITES-ERS BY BLOWING UP THE LEVEES.

Because thanks to the vast right wing conspiracy, he has power over the weather. And bombs. And fearmongering. And ninjas.

NINJAS. Vast right wing conspiracy ninjas. That live in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

EDIT:Spelling.

[GrapevineSooner]

Bush is going to turn American into a police state ANNNNY minute now. We'd better gain control of the House and Senate so we can begin impeachment proceedings ASAP!!!

[picasso]

Bush is going to turn American into a police state ANNNNY minute now. We'd better gain control of the House and Senate so we can begin impeachment proceedings ASAP!!!
That actually may happen. But I'm not holding my breath for the U.N. to solve any of our problems.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You mean Kofi and the Gang aren't interested in preserving our God given, inalienable rights as citizens of our beloved United States of America?

Oh yeah.

They're already interested in nuttin' the 2nd.

[Jerk]

2 front war:

terrorists abroad and...

liberals at home.

[LosAngelesSooner]

How about Michael Moore?
You're saying Michael Moore (whom I do NOT like and think is generally stinky) doesn't do any research or have any regard for the facts?

:pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

2 front war:

fascists abroad and...

fascists in the White House.

Fixed it for ya.

[LosAngelesSooner]

PRESIDENT BUSH CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING CREATING HURRICANE KATRINA WHICH HE USED TO DESTROY THE LIVES OF POOR NEW ORLEANS-ERS-ES-ITES-ERS BY BLOWING UP THE LEVEES.

Because thanks to the vast right wing conspiracy, he has power over the weather. And bombs. And fearmongering. And ninjas.

NINJAS. Vast right wing conspiracy ninjas. That live in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

EDIT:Spelling.

One word: Ritalin


:twinkies:

[LosAngelesSooner]

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, etc.
No regard for actual research or truth or facts, No regard for actual research or truth or facts, No regard for actual research or truth or facts?




You guys TOTALLY ignored the part that I put in bold. Sheesh...

:)

[LosAngelesSooner]

John Kerry? he's poor, his old lady doesn't have any money! not as much as the Bushies.:rolleyes:
and Al Gore? would ya believe his old man made his money in .....gulp, oil?
I didn't vote for Gore and I never liked Kerry (and had to wash my hand after I voted for him)

[Harry Beanbag]

No regard for actual research or truth or facts, No regard for actual research or truth or facts, No regard for actual research or truth or facts?




You guys TOTALLY ignored the part that I put in bold. Sheesh...

:)


You're arguing that John F'n Kerry is a pillar of truth and accuracy. My God, I can't stop laughing now. http://oklahoma.rivals.com/images/smilies/roll.gif (javascript:updateText('/images/smilies/roll.gif','roll');void('');)

These people are all the same. They only facts they use are the ones that support whatever belief or agenda they're trying to push at the moment. Anything that may contradict them is ignored, not really the whole truth now is it?

[Harry Beanbag]

I didn't vote for Gore and I never liked Kerry (and had to wash my hand after I voted for him)


As any good republican would do. :)

[SCOUT]

You're saying Michael Moore (whom I do NOT like and think is generally stinky) doesn't do any research or have any regard for the facts?

:pop:
http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/28/55/58m.jpg

Yep, I am. He may do some research but his recanting of "facts" is so loose that it is absurd.

[picasso]

I didn't vote for Gore and I never liked Kerry (and had to wash my hand after I voted for him)
please. just reading your posts last night reminded me of the logical sig you had during the last presidential election.
that and a few beers.

[OklahomaTuba]

Booming?

LMAO

Yes, Booming.

Try doing some research some time, the real world may surprise you.

[OklahomaTuba]

"If Bush lied then so did Clinton". Perhaps, but one of them started a war on the incorrect assumptions and questionable intelligence, and the other, as is so often noted, just talked a lot.
Of course, that little event on September 11th, 2001 had nothing whatsoever to do with the reason we are at war in Iraq.

Again, more proof that history, research and facts do not mix well with liberal "thought".

[mdklatt]

Of course, that little event on September 11th, 2001 had nothing whatsoever to do with the reason we are at war in Iraq.


Have you been listening to Donald Rumsfeld again?

[1stTimeCaller]

hot carl

[JohnnyMack]

This thread reminds me, I need to go take a ****.

[OklahomaTuba]

Have you been listening to Donald Rumsfeld again?

No, my mind is controlled from the Furher himself. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

2 front war:

terrorists abroad and...

liberals at home.Absolutely, and neither battle will end anytime soon.(witness this stupid war of words we're having here and now)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Yes, Booming.

Try doing some research some time, the real world may surprise you.
Awww...cute widdle Tuba. Still thinking that he sees the world the right way and everybody else is blind to the truth.

Your world must be sooo pwetty.

:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Of course, that little event on September 11th, 2001 had nothing whatsoever to do with the reason we are at war in Iraq.

Again, more proof that history, research and facts do not mix well with liberal "thought".

Ah...cute wordplay.

September 11th has a LOT to do as to why we are in Iraq. If not for 9/11 Bushy wouldn't have had the support to get the war on Iraq. The people would not have been afraid and easily lied to. The press would not have been his lapdogs. The Congress would not have been his fluffers.

However...Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, as all evidence since then has clearly displayed.

[LosAngelesSooner]

please. just reading your posts last night reminded me of the logical sig you had during the last presidential election.
that and a few beers.

What was that sig? I forgot. Looong time ago...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Absolutely, and neither battle will end anytime soon.(witness this stupid war of words we're having here and now)

Yeah...open discussion and disagreement. TOTALLY NOT what this country was based on. How will we EVER get the dissenters to shut up?!?!

:rolleyes:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

electrical prods to the junk?

[1stTimeCaller]

hot carl

[LosAngelesSooner]

electrical prods to the junk?

See: Guantanamo

[LosAngelesSooner]

hot carl *gag*

That might work.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

See: Guantanamo


Why do you hate America :(

http://www.valdezlink.com/media-hi/sunrise.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

I like boobies.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I don't know why. I really don't.

Because...you know...9/11 immediately justifies ANY action that the U.S. government may choose to do, regardless of how immoral, evil, un-Constitutional, or contrary to the founding principles of our Nation that they may be.



I guess, in having a conscience and a moral compass, I must really hate America.



(do I really need a rolleyes to emphasize the sarcasm in this post?)

[mdklatt]

Because...you know...9/11 immediately justifies ANY action that the U.S. government may choose to do, regardless of how immoral, evil, un-Constitutional, or contrary to the founding principles of our Nation that they may be.



:les: WE'RE AT WAR FOR THE CHILDREN!11!!!

[LosAngelesSooner]

:les: WE WILL BE GREETED AS LIBERATORS!

Fixed it for ya. ;)

[mdklatt]

Fixed it for ya. ;)


That's not entirely inaccurate. A significant number of Iraqis were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Certainly.

But you can be glad one guy is gone without liking or being glad about the guys who made him leave.


And if THIS is being greeted as Liberators, we should be glad they didn't greet us as if they, you know, didn't like us, or stuff.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I guess, in having a conscience and a moral compass, I must really hate America.



Apology accepted ;)

[PhilTLL]

Of course, that little event on September 11th, 2001 had nothing whatsoever to do with the reason we are at war in Iraq.

Again, more proof that history, research and facts do not mix well with liberal "thought".

Every time I watch the news and think "Who the hell do they think is buying into this crap?" all I have to do is come back to the SO.

I'm not even a Democrat, I'm a libertarian, but if it suits you to paint with a damning brush, go for it.

[GrapevineSooner]

Apology accepted ;)

LAS' sarcasm detector must not have been on. ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah...open discussion and disagreement. TOTALLY NOT what this country was based on. How will we EVER get the dissenters to shut up?!?!

:rolleyes:Who is it you want to shut up?(and which of your B* do you think is convincing ?)

[OklahomaTuba]

However...Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, as all evidence since then has clearly displayed.


Interestingly, no one has ever claimed this either. Saddam was disposed for this support of terrorism and access to weapons.

You do know Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, right?

[OklahomaTuba]

Every time I watch the news and think "Who the hell do they think is buying into this crap?" all I have to do is come back to the SO.

I'm not even a Democrat, I'm a libertarian, but if it suits you to paint with a damning brush, go for it.

Which "crap" are you referring too?

And I am not painting anything, simply showing you facts which you choose to ignore, or simply cannot comprehend.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Tuba, you've got to let the liberals argue with themselves. If they have forgotten that the U.N.-backed ouster of Hussein was the reason for originally going into Iraq, there's nothing you can do about it.

That terrorists were also there was a bonus. We overthrow Saddam and get to kill terrorists all in the same trips.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Interestingly, no one has ever claimed this either. Saddam was disposed for this support of terrorism and access to weapons.

You do know Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, right?

cough http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43202&highlight=9%2F11+connection+iraq
cough

[OklahomaTuba]

cough http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43202&highlight=9%2F11+connection+iraq
cough

Where did I say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 in that thread?

Oh, I didn't, nm.

Better luck next time though. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

LAS' sarcasm detector must not have been on. ;)
It was on. That was for some other people's benefit.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Who is it you want to shut up?(and which of your B* do you think is convincing ?)

#1. I don't want to shut up anyone. This is America.
#2. For logical, free thinking people all of my points are convincing. For lockstep, blindly loyal, ignoramuses...I guess it may come off as b*.

Which one are you?

:pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Interestingly, no one has ever claimed this either. Saddam was disposed for this support of terrorism and access to weapons.

You do know Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, right?

BWAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA

OMFG!

LMAO!!!!!

BWAAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAAAAAA-HAAAAAAA

*sniff!*

*gag*




Where's that search feature. I've gotta go dig me up a whole SLEW of OklahomaTuba posts and quotes from about two years ago!!!!


Oh, man...that one...that one just made my whole week. That was worth being let back on the S.O. right there. Man...


oh....


god...

[LosAngelesSooner]

I just...

oh...man...






brain...short circuited...


I need to take a break so I can recover.




TuBaWoRlD!!! WeLcOmE tO tUbAwOrLd!!!!

pay no attention to those little things over there...they're called facts...and reality...ignore...ignore at all costs...


LMFAO!!!!!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Let's see, you imply that Iraq has role in Al AGaeda...Who planned 9/11..it's called 2+2=4 philosophy.

[OklahomaTuba]

#1. I don't want to shut up anyone. This is America.

Funny, your past pms, neg spek and trolls always said other wise, to me at least.

[LosAngelesSooner]

*sniff*

I just had to peek at that post one last time.

It's a thing of beauty!

:D:D:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Funny, your past pms, neg spek and trolls always said other wise, to me at least.

What can I say? I missed ya!

It's people like you who make me realize just how intelligent all my friends are.

You are like a perfect compass or measuring stick! You give perspective!

I guess my long hiatus made mre realize just how much joy you brought into my life...as evidenced by that BEAUTY of a post at the top of this page.


:D:D:D:D

[OklahomaTuba]

Let's see, you imply that Iraq has role in Al AGaeda...Who planned 9/11..it's called 2+2=4 philosophy.

So, because Iraq may have had a role or worked with AQ means Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Germany was involved with Japan, yet Germany wasn't involved in Pearl Harbor.

This isn't difficult Gandalf.

[OklahomaTuba]

What can I say? I missed ya!

It's people like you who make me realize just how intelligent all my friends are.

You are like a perfect compass or measuring stick! You give perspective!

I guess my long hiatus made mre realize just how much joy you brought into my life...as evidenced by that BEAUTY of a post at the top of this page.


:D:D:D:D

Always a joy to have you back as well.

I see it still doesn't take you long to start having meltdowns on the board when faced with facts.

Its painfully obvious that personal attacks are much easier for you to deliver in a debate instead of dealing with the subject at hand.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

We didn't start fighting Germany because of Pearl Harbor....we had been looking for an excuse to get into it with Germany and Pearl Harbor allowed us that route. The same goes for Iraq...9/11 didn't cause us to HAVE to invade Iraq. We were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and 9/11 gave us that excuse. Iraq is nowhere near the biggest ****head in the Middle East...by a LONG shot in my opinion. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and any number of other countries are just as BIG a threat to U.S. security. To say we invaded Iraq to hamper Al Gaeda just seems awfully disingenious to me. We toppled a dictator but what about the other 400 in the area. What made Saddam so special?

[JohnnyMack]

Fact: Snickers almond, while good, just isn't as good as the original.

[JohnnyMack]

We didn't start fighting Germany because of Pearl Harbor....we had been looking for an excuse to get into it with Germany and Pearl Harbor allowed us that route. The same goes for Iraq...9/11 didn't cause us to HAVE to invade Iraq. We were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and 9/11 gave us that excuse. Iraq is nowhere near the biggest ****head in the Middle East...by a LONG shot in my opinion. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and any number of other countries are just as BIG a threat to U.S. security. To say we invaded Iraq to hamper Al Gaeda just seems awfully disingenious to me. We toppled a dictator but what about the other 400 in the area. What made Saddam so special?

He was an easy target that was going to offer little resistance and allow us to show what badasses we are to the rest of the middle east and show them that we mean business?

[OklahomaTuba]

What made Saddam so special?
Name another person that has supported terrorism, had the weapons programs he did, used those weapons on his own people, committed genocide of his own people, invaded another country, threatened our allies, broke a cease fire with us, shot at our airforce planes, tried to assassinate a former president, violated numerous UN resolutions, and wouldn't let the UN monitor its weapons programs?

Not even Iran has done all of that.

I would go back and read what Clinton said about it in 1998. It answers your question very well. We had more reason to go to war in Iraq than we had to in either WW1, Korea or Vietnam.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Always a joy to have you back as well.

I see it still doesn't take you long to start having meltdowns on the board when faced with facts.

Its painfully obvious that personal attacks are much easier for you to deliver in a debate instead of dealing with the subject at hand.

*snicker*

He said "facts" again.

*chortle*

:D

[OklahomaTuba]

Fact: Snickers almond, while good, just isn't as good as the original.
No, thats an opinion Johnny. Good try though, at least your attempting it. :D

[Harry Beanbag]

We didn't start fighting Germany because of Pearl Harbor....we had been looking for an excuse to get into it with Germany and Pearl Harbor allowed us that route.

Of course Germany declared war on the U.S. first...



We were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and 9/11 gave us that excuse.

More from the Bush-haters Anonymous script.



Iraq is nowhere near the biggest ****head in the Middle East...by a LONG shot in my opinion. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and any number of other countries are just as BIG a threat to U.S. security. To say we invaded Iraq to hamper Al Gaeda just seems awfully disingenious to me.

It would be disingenuous if it were true.




We toppled a dictator but what about the other 400 in the area. What made Saddam so special?

Easy sell and strategic positioning is all, IMO.

[JohnnyMack]

No, thats an opinion Johnny. Good try though, at least your attempting it. :D

Fact.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Korea has done most of those things and as for killing their own people...it isn't our job to police these countries...that is the U.N.'s job ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Not to mention the fact that Korea HAS killed many of their people through starvation and poverty, rather than wmd's.

But I guess that doesn't count, since they were poor. I mean...what do they expect? The State to get them jobs? Help their industry? Sheeet, they need to go git 'ems some jobs! Lazy North Koreans!

[picasso]

Not to mention the fact that Korea HAS killed many of their people through starvation and poverty, rather than wmd's.

But I guess that doesn't count, since they were poor. I mean...what do they expect? The State to get them jobs? Help their industry? Sheeet, they need to go git 'ems some jobs! Lazy North Koreans!
and who the hell patted them on the back in the 90's?

and the last line? lame attempt at redneck Americans. but hey, you're just a country boy right?:D

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b396/burger248/algore_getoffmyinternet.jpg

[soonerscuba]

It is Labor Day weekend and I have the flu, I blame Bush.

Also, Snickers Ice Cream bars pwn all other forms of Snickers.

[MiccoMacey]

Also, Snickers Ice Cream bars pwn all other forms of Snickers.

Truer words were never typed on the internet.

[LosAngelesSooner]

and who the hell patted them on the back in the 90's?

and the last line? lame attempt at redneck Americans. but hey, you're just a country boy right?:D
It wasn't a LAME attempt...but I could certainly do better.

Lemme think of sumptin'.

[GDC]

http://www.yearssupply.co.uk/images/marsbar.gif

[GrapevineSooner]

It's gameday.

No arguing politics until Monday.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

UAB is going to get *** raped like the Nazi's did when the ole USA layed the smackdown on the Nazi's monkey asses!!

[LosAngelesSooner]

OU Football > Mars Bar

Book it.

[rogcoley]

That war was all about positioning in the region. If you admit that, it's been a success.

The war is about Dubya being a fear merchant and a religious moon bat.

[Okla-homey]

People. Please. A little decorum.

This war may have begun for any number of reasons. Arguing about its origins is about as pointless as trying to figure out precisely who shot Kennedy. Its ancient history and the guy is still pushing up daisies.

All that matters now is killing those bastages over there beats the living shiite out of killing them over here. These guys don't play. They want to burn our babies and I only wish that were an exaggeration. We've lost 2600 kids in the war so far and that is indeed a terrible price.

Those men, however, raised their right hands and said "Send me" and they are still doing so in sufficient numbers. While we are whining about not blowing UAB out 100 to nothing and the price of gas, they are walking the point among evil forces who want desperately to kill them and make their young wives widows and their children fatherless.

They understand the stakes and are willing to lay down their lives on behalf of this kooky experiment in democracy we call the United States.

If the dems want to be surrender monkeys and bring the troops home, they will merely embolden the enemy and invoke greater wrath. Its still the early in season in GWOT and we have a lot of road games left to play. Please, in the name of all that is holy, lets stick with the road schedule.

I'll tell you something else too, if the dems win and we hang up our cleats and repeal the USA Patriot Act, you better damn well be ready for for some fireworks over here.

Bottomline for Homey, a vote for a surrender monkey = puss who doesn't deserve to enjoy the benefits of life in the greatest nation the world has yet known.

[rogcoley]

Man Homey! You are in lock step with the neo-cons. Arguing is pointless if we disagree with you, correct? You sound just like Dubya, invoking the dead soldiers memories and not trying to make any real point. Have you noticed how Bush gives all his speeches about policy at American Legion conventions or on military bases? It’s called being a demagogue. You have the "You're against or for us" down to a fine art. Someone disagrees, question their patriotism. You sound like the propaganda wing of the Bush administration A.K.A. The Fox News Network. So we only get to enjoy being Americans if we agree with you and your brain donor boy Bush? That’s how a democracy works in your myopic world? That sounds like Khrushchev’s Russia circa 1959 not the U.S.A. in 2006.

The early 20th century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, known for his "definitions" of terms, defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

[Harry Beanbag]

Man Homey! You are in lock step with the neo-cons. Arguing is pointless if we disagree with you, correct? You sound just like Dubya, invoking the dead soldiers memories and not trying to make any real point. Have you noticed how Bush gives all his speeches about policy at American Legion conventions or on military bases? It’s called being a demagogue. You have the "You're against or for us" down to a fine art. Someone disagrees, question their patriotism. You sound like the propaganda wing of the Bush administration A.K.A. The Fox News Network. So we only get to enjoy being Americans if we agree with you and your brain donor boy Bush? That’s how a democracy works in your myopic world? That sounds like Khrushchev’s Russia circa 1959 not the U.S.A. in 2006.

The early 20th century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, known for his "definitions" of terms, defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."



For someone accusing another of being a parrot, this garbage looks awfully familiar. :rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

Man Homey! You are in lock step with the neo-cons. Arguing is pointless if we disagree with you, correct? You sound just like Dubya, invoking the dead soldiers memories and not trying to make any real point. Have you noticed how Bush gives all his speeches about policy at American Legion conventions or on military bases? It’s called being a demagogue. You have the "You're against or for us" down to a fine art. Someone disagrees, question their patriotism. You sound like the propaganda wing of the Bush administration A.K.A. The Fox News Network. So we only get to enjoy being Americans if we agree with you and your brain donor boy Bush? That’s how a democracy works in your myopic world? That sounds like Khrushchev’s Russia circa 1959 not the U.S.A. in 2006.

The early 20th century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, known for his "definitions" of terms, defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

I've earned the right to my opinion slappy. Be a surrender monkey if you want. Fortunately, there are people who aren't who will protect you.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Man Homey! You are in lock step with the neo-cons. Arguing is pointless if we disagree with you, correct? You sound just like Dubya, invoking the dead soldiers memories and not trying to make any real point. Have you noticed how Bush gives all his speeches about policy at American Legion conventions or on military bases? It’s called being a demagogue. You have the "You're against or for us" down to a fine art. Someone disagrees, question their patriotism. You sound like the propaganda wing of the Bush administration A.K.A. The Fox News Network. So we only get to enjoy being Americans if we agree with you and your brain donor boy Bush? That’s how a democracy works in your myopic world? That sounds like Khrushchev’s Russia circa 1959 not the U.S.A. in 2006.

The early 20th century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, known for his "definitions" of terms, defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."We can only hope your above post is tongue-in-cheek. If it isn't, it's hard to believe we grew up in the same country.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Even after 12 pages, I still agree with Rumsfeld.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But doesn't that make you a baby killing fascist neocon that loves death and destruction topped with whipped cream and a cherry of the lives of innocent Iraqis?

I almost threw up in my mouth typin' that, sarcasm or no.

[Hate_Texas]

Rumsfeld (and the rest of them) are scared &*?!less about the possibility of the D's winning a majority in either chamber and exercising some subpoena power re: this mess of death and deception.

That's what this current media offensive is about.

They're whipping up the base going into the midterms, AND this election (polls show) there are enough ****ed off people about what they've done, that someone may have to pay for what they've done...

[rogcoley]

I've earned the right to my opinion slappy. Be a surrender monkey if you want. Fortunately, there are people who aren't who will protect you.

I feel the need to be protected from you. You and people like you have hijacked our personal liberties under the guise of "protecting" us. I doubt you've ever formed an opinion on your own without running it past at least three other reactionaries. I never said anything about surrendering or leaving Iraq. You’re just helping me make the point that you are in lock step with Bush and you spew stock answers questioning people’s morals, beliefs or their courage when you are challenged in the least bit. You don’t listen , you react, Polly.

[Harry Beanbag]

I feel the need to be protected from you. You and people like you have hijacked our personal liberties under the guise of "protecting" us. I doubt you've ever formed an opinion on your own without running it past at least three other reactionaries. I never said anything about surrendering or leaving Iraq. You’re just helping me make the point that you are in lock step with Bush and you spew stock answers questioning people’s morals, beliefs or their courage when you are challenged in the least bit. You don’t listen , you react, Polly.


Do you drive a $43,000 Yukon?

[rogcoley]

We can only hope your above post is tongue-in-cheek. If it isn't, it's hard to believe we grew up in the same country.

Why is it hard to believe we grew up in the same country? Again, you conservatives allow only opinions you agree with to be deemed valid. Dissent towards our government is just as patriotic as supporting it. I support the troops, but that doesn’t mean I support the failed policies that placed them in harm’s way. And spare me the argument that it harms the troops for them to hear us criticize Bush. Don’t sell them short, they aren’t without intelligence. If you’re so certain of your beliefs, why do you attack when someone challenges you and try to paint them as treasonous? Do you not understand how your views are the antithesis of democratic function?

[rogcoley]

Do you drive a $43,000 Yukon?

No I don't. Do you and your family share one tooth amongst all of you?

[soonerscuba]

Hmmm... Troll or not? I need to run by at least three other reactionaries.

[sooner n houston]

I feel the need to be protected from you. You and people like you have hijacked our personal liberties under the guise of "protecting" us.
So which personal liberties of yours has Homey hijacked? Just curious!


I doubt you've ever formed an opinion on your own without running it past at least three other reactionaries. I never said anything about surrendering or leaving Iraq.

So you are advocating staying the course then?


You’re just helping me make the point that you are in lock step with Bush and you spew stock answers questioning people’s morals, beliefs or their courage when you are challenged in the least bit. You don’t listen , you react, Polly.

Pot, kettle!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why is it hard to believe we grew up in the same country? Again, you conservatives allow only opinions you agree with to be deemed valid. Dissent towards our government is just as patriotic as supporting it. I support the troops, but that doesn’t mean I support the failed policies that placed them in harm’s way. And spare me the argument that it harms the troops for them to hear us criticize Bush. Don’t sell them short, they aren’t without intelligence. If you’re so certain of your beliefs, why do you attack when someone challenges you and try to paint them as treasonous? Do you not understand how your views are the antithesis of democratic function?A little defensive, aren't we, lib?