NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been looking into the anti-war protests that Cindy Sheehan started. I believe that she has the total right to protest. Now I have never agreed with Bush on the Iraqi war. I think it was pointless to Invade Iraq. We had proven that there were no WMD's. Yet Bush continues to use that excuse as a reason for the war. He won't talk to Cindy? Why not? What does our president have to hide? I believe that our First President George Washington would have talked with people about his decisions. This country was founded in the ideals that the leader, the person who represents the whole nation, would actually make decisions that represented what the nation wanted. Do you think that this nation would be a great as it is today is every politician was as anti-social as Bush? Bush says that Cindy is giving support to the enemy and demoralizing the nation. WHAT? Not once did Cindy say that she supported the enemy. And demoralizing the nation? Have you seen Bush's approval rating lately? It is practically non-existint like his brain. Does he even have the Cojones to talk to protesters? His mid has one track. he won't even listen to anything he doesn't agree with. Now that his vacation is over. He can get back to running the country, which I say he doesn't do a good job of but what the heck. Maybe he will actually do something to show he is worth the respect of the Nation. Maybe he can actually run the nation the right way instead of sticking his head up his @$$. One of these days Bush will do something to give us a chance to impeach him. That day can't come soon enough.

What are your opinions?

I'm sorry if some people think that I am being too extreme. Sometimes i get overexcited about things. I would like to know anyones views on this topic.

I have been looking into the anti-war protests that Cindy Sheehan started. I believe that she has the total right to protest. Now I have never agreed with Bush on the Iraqi war. I think it was pointless to Invade Iraq. We had proven that there were no WMD's. Yet Bush continues to use that excuse as a reason for the war. He won't talk to Cindy? Why not? What does our president have to hide? I believe that our First President George Washington would have talked with people about his decisions. This country was founded in the ideals that the leader, the person who represents the whole nation, would actually make decisions that represented what the nation wanted. Do you think that this nation would be a great as it is today is every politician was as anti-social as Bush? Bush says that Cindy is giving support to the enemy and demoralizing the nation. WHAT? Not once did Cindy say that she supported the enemy. And demoralizing the nation? Have you seen Bush's approval rating lately? It is practically non-existint like his brain. Does he even have the Cojones to talk to protesters? His mid has one track. he won't even listen to anything he doesn't agree with. Now that his vacation is over. He can get back to running the country, which I say he doesn't do a good job of but what the heck. Maybe he will actually do something to show he is worth the respect of the Nation. Maybe he can actually run the nation the right way instead of sticking his head up his @$$. One of these days Bush will do something to give us a chance to impeach him. That day can't come soon enough.

What are your opinions?

1) Of course she has the right to protest, she retains the right to believe whatever the hell she wants, regardless of how fucked up it may be.

2) Replacing a tyrannical regime with a democracy is not pointless.

3) The UN has concluded that, but they still may be out there, but it's doubtful. And Bush does not use this as a reason for us to stay.

4) He doesn't talk to her because he already has.

5) The majority of the US wanted to go to war when we invaded Iraq.

6) She's not necesarily supporting the enemy, but she sure as hell ain't helping the troops. She's associated herself with radical leftists like Michael Moore, who has the gall to call the insurgents 'minutemen', basically equating them to the minutemen of the American Revolution. Guilty by association.

7) Newsflash: Bush does not control every aspect of this nation. Blaming him for the death of our soldiers just doesn't cut it. They knew full well when they signed up that they could die. Another newsflash: Things aren't that terrible in America. In fact, they're pretty decent. Maybe you should get YOUR head out of YOUR ass.

I believe that she has the total right to protest.

no one, NO ONE has ever said she dosn't not even W

What does our president have to hide?

if he has anything to hide do you really think cindy is going to be the one to figure it out?

This country was founded in the ideals that the leader, the person who represents the whole nation, would actually make decisions that represented what the nation wanted.

yeah, thats why we have, you know, congress.........

Maybe he can actually run the nation the right way instead of sticking his head up his @$$.

well the fact that he was re-elected kinda indicates that what ever he is doing hes doing it right

I'm sorry if some people think that I am being too extreme. Sometimes i get overexcited about things. I would like to know anyones views on this topic.
Bush already lost by not meeting with Sheehan. Instead, he has a 3 ring circus camped on his doorstep, and I personally think it demonstrates that he is a poor statesman, and that he is nowhere near the "compassionate (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/compassionate/)" conservative mantle that he prepared for himself.

What exactly must Bush "loose" anyway? Loose the dogs? That'd be a tad excessive, methinks...

Bush Vs. Sheehan. Bush must loose.

Kraku vs. The English Language. Kraku must lose.

Bush is undoubtedly the most corrupt president this nation has ever seen unless you count his father (can you say "in the Saudi's pocket"). The man was a middling student, a partying, woman chasing f*&%-up with DUI's until he went straight to being the governor of Texas with little or no political experience. He sticks his foot in his mouth on a regular basis (he must love the taste of shoe leather) and had the gall to say of Clinton during Kosovo that Clinton (who was a Rhodes Scholar) needed to explain his "exit strategy". Bush won't talk to anyone about his "exit strategy" or anything else. Remember he's the one who said it was all over (um, remind me how many dead soldiers ago that was).

Kraku vs. The English Language. Kraku must lose.

*Stifles laughter*

Bush is undoubtedly the most corrupt president this nation has ever seen unless you count his father (can you say "in the Saudi's pocket"). The man was a middling student, a partying, woman chasing f*&%-up with DUI's until he went straight to being the governor of Texas with little or no political experience. He sticks his foot in his mouth on a regular basis (he must love the taste of shoe leather) and had the gall to say of Clinton during Kosovo that Clinton (who was a Rhodes Scholar) needed to explain his "exit strategy". Bush won't talk to anyone about his "exit strategy" or anything else. Remember he's the one who said it was all over (um, remind me how many dead soldiers ago that was).


I couldn't agree with you more!

1) Of course she has the right to protest, she retains the right to believe whatever the hell she wants, regardless of how fucked up it may be.

2) Replacing a tyrannical regime with a democracy is not pointless.

3) The UN has concluded that, but they still may be out there, but it's doubtful. And Bush does not use this as a reason for us to stay.

4) He doesn't talk to her because he already has.

5) The majority of the US wanted to go to war when we invaded Iraq.

6) She's not necesarily supporting the enemy, but she sure as hell ain't helping the troops. She's associated herself with radical leftists like Michael Moore, who has the gall to call the insurgents 'minutemen', basically equating them to the minutemen of the American Revolution. Guilty by association.

7) Newsflash: Bush does not control every aspect of this nation. Blaming him for the death of our soldiers just doesn't cut it. They knew full well when they signed up that they could die. Another newsflash: Things aren't that terrible in America. In fact, they're pretty decent. Maybe you should get YOUR head out of YOUR ass.


1. How is it "fucked up" to believe that the Iraq war was not worth her son's death? And what is so bad about demanding that Bush answer what exactly this "noble cause" her son DIED for even IS?? He hasn't been straight with the American Public, the Congress, the UN, or anyone else, from day one, as to what this war was even ABOUT. The answer kept changing as conditions changed. cindy wants to know exactly, once and for all WHAT THE FUCK IS THE NOBLE CAUSE HER SON HAD TO DIE FOR?? I don't think it's unreasonable to demand the President answer that question. Or maybe he could send his daughters, since it is SUCH a noble cause?

2. There is no democracy in Iraq, and there won't be. Too many competing factions, all of whom have no experience with the kind of give and take that will be needed to build a Democracy. Not everyone gets everything they want. Compromises are made on both sides. Or in the case of Iraq...all four sides (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, and the United States.) No one is gonna walk out of there with everything they want...or even most of it. The three parties in Iraq have no experience in compromise, and Bush doesn't either. Certainly, Bush has no DESIRE to compromise, either. He's demonstrated as much with his domestic policies. Why would we think his foreign policy would be anything other than his domestic policy, which is basically, "My way or the highway?"

3. Which is exactly why sheehan wants to talk to the President. WHY are we staying there? WHAT is this "noble cause" my son had to die for? WHY did we go in the first place? These are not unreasonable questions, and it is not unreasonable to demand that Bush take accountability for his actions.

4. He hasn't answered her questions.

5. The majority wanted to go to war, because we were fed false and misleading information. Information that Bush KNEW DAMN WELL was false and misleading.

6. And Bush is helping the troops? Oh, yeah, I forgot...he's helpinig the troops by showing up with a plastic turkey, and by cutting veterans benefits and hazardous duty pay for combat soldier in wartime...sending them into urban combat underequipped, undermanned, undertrained, and unprepared, he has no exit strategy whatsoever...he's basically sending them into an unwinnable war. And how is THAT "supporting the troops?" And why is an rxit strategy unimportant when it's BUSH waging the war, but, when he was Gubnor of Texas, he saw fit to criticize Clinton over Kosovo for HAVING NO EXIT STRATEGY!! And this fucker DARES to call KERRY a "flip-flopper??" WTF?!?!

All's I got to say is do a Google search on Bush + Asshole, and hit I'm Feeling Lucky.

Kraku vs. The English Language. Kraku must lose.

Cheap shot. Just what you'd expect from someone who cannot debate the legitimate points. Instead of taking on the message, and the points of the debate, he attacks the messenger. Typical tactic of one who knows he cannot win the debate.

My Fist Vs. Aldranin's Face. Aldranin Must Lose.

Correction: In my topic I meant to say Lose. So Let's get back on topicc shall we.

Bush is undoubtedly the most corrupt president this nation has ever seen unless you count his father (can you say "in the Saudi's pocket"). The man was a middling student, a partying, woman chasing f*&%-up with DUI's until he went straight to being the governor of Texas with little or no political experience. He sticks his foot in his mouth on a regular basis (he must love the taste of shoe leather) and had the gall to say of Clinton during Kosovo that Clinton (who was a Rhodes Scholar) needed to explain his "exit strategy". Bush won't talk to anyone about his "exit strategy" or anything else. Remember he's the one who said it was all over (um, remind me how many dead soldiers ago that was).

You know what, how is Bush corrupt? Please point me because from what I know he isn't corrupt. I'm pretty sure he hasn't had a sex scandal yet ;)

Also Bush has already told his exit strategy. Maybe a bit vage but it still outlines it. I saw it on the news (NBC) but too lazy to dig it up now. Maybe tomorrow.

Also don't bring someone's private life into public life. He didn't do any of those during his term so I don't really care about that.

and had the gall to say of Clinton during Kosovo that Clinton (who was a Rhodes Scholar) needed to explain his "exit strategy". Bush won't talk to anyone about his "exit strategy" or anything else.

Thank you! In fact, during Kosovo, Bush said it was necessary to have an exit strategy. I believe he said, "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
Nice...
I came across several hypocritical quotes recently, on of which was this: "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 :headbang:

How can we trust a president who is anti-social? Also just because he didn't get DUI's in his term doesn't mean it's not important. How can we trust that he won't do it again? Keep up the discussion.

Thank you! In fact, during Kosovo, Bush said it was necessary to have an exit strategy. I believe he said, "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
Nice...
I came across several hypocritical quotes recently, on of which was this: "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 :headbang:

Ah, but they hope we won't remember, and dredge up those quotes, when the shoe is on the other foot!
We learned how to play their game, and we've learned it well, and now they are pissed off that we stole a page from their own playbook.

Typical conservatives...they can dish it out, but they can't take it.

You know what, how is Bush corrupt? Please point me because from what I know he isn't corrupt. I'm pretty sure he hasn't had a sex scandal yet ;)

Also Bush has already told his exit strategy. Maybe a bit vage but it still outlines it. I saw it on the news (NBC) but too lazy to dig it up now. Maybe tomorrow.

Also don't bring someone's private life into public life. He didn't do any of those during his term so I don't really care about that.

If you are too lazy to look anything up, no wonder you dont how corrupt the man is. Maybe you should read about his family's business dealings with the Saudi's. How about his Vice President's connections to the corporation Halliburton who has most of the contracts in Iraq? Do a little reading.

You know what, how is Bush corrupt? Please point me because from what I know he isn't corrupt. I'm pretty sure he hasn't had a sex scandal yet ;)

Also Bush has already told his exit strategy. Maybe a bit vage but it still outlines it. I saw it on the news (NBC) but too lazy to dig it up now. Maybe tomorrow.

Also don't bring someone's private life into public life. He didn't do any of those during his term so I don't really care about that.

Oh and if you don't think what Bush did before he became president is important then why would a little sex amongst consenting adults bother you. Let's just say most women have better taste than to have sex with Bush, and those who probably have, would be too embarrasssed to admit it.

1. How is it "fucked up" to believe that the Iraq war was not worth her son's death? And what is so bad about demanding that Bush answer what exactly this "noble cause" her son DIED for even IS?? He hasn't been straight with the American Public, the Congress, the UN, or anyone else, from day one, as to what this war was even ABOUT. The answer kept changing as conditions changed. cindy wants to know exactly, once and for all WHAT THE FUCK IS THE NOBLE CAUSE HER SON HAD TO DIE FOR?? I don't think it's unreasonable to demand the President answer that question. Or maybe he could send his daughters, since it is SUCH a noble cause?

2. There is no democracy in Iraq, and there won't be. Too many competing factions, all of whom have no experience with the kind of give and take that will be needed to build a Democracy. Not everyone gets everything they want. Compromises are made on both sides. Or in the case of Iraq...all four sides (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, and the United States.) No one is gonna walk out of there with everything they want...or even most of it. The three parties in Iraq have no experience in compromise, and Bush doesn't either. Certainly, Bush has no DESIRE to compromise, either. He's demonstrated as much with his domestic policies. Why would we think his foreign policy would be anything other than his domestic policy, which is basically, "My way or the highway?"

3. Which is exactly why sheehan wants to talk to the President. WHY are we staying there? WHAT is this "noble cause" my son had to die for? WHY did we go in the first place? These are not unreasonable questions, and it is not unreasonable to demand that Bush take accountability for his actions.

4. He hasn't answered her questions.

5. The majority wanted to go to war, because we were fed false and misleading information. Information that Bush KNEW DAMN WELL was false and misleading.

6. And Bush is helping the troops? Oh, yeah, I forgot...he's helpinig the troops by showing up with a plastic turkey, and by cutting veterans benefits and hazardous duty pay for combat soldier in wartime...sending them into urban combat underequipped, undermanned, undertrained, and unprepared, he has no exit strategy whatsoever...he's basically sending them into an unwinnable war. And how is THAT "supporting the troops?" And why is an rxit strategy unimportant when it's BUSH waging the war, but, when he was Gubnor of Texas, he saw fit to criticize Clinton over Kosovo for HAVING NO EXIT STRATEGY!! And this fucker DARES to call KERRY a "flip-flopper??" WTF?!?!

All's I got to say is do a Google search on Bush + Asshole, and hit I'm Feeling Lucky.

First of all, calm down.

1) How about stability in Iraq? How about democratic reforms across the middle east? It's fucked up to say that we should pull out now, islamic terrorists will take over, more people will die, and then Bush WILL be to blame. Now that we are there, we must stick it out for both political and humanitarian reasons.

2) Well, they had elections back in the winter, and I'd say that's one aspect of a democracy. They're drafting a constitution, that's another aspect of a democracy. So there are competing factions. So what? This is one of the foundations of democracy, the party system. Do democrats get what they want? Do republicans? Hell, how many political parties are there in the US, and do they get even some of what they want? There will be democracy in Iraq, but it will take a while. How long did it take from the Articles of confederation to the Constitution? Building a democracy takes time.

3) He's stated this. The Iraqi people need stability, and they just don't have it.

4) Yes, he has. They're just not the answers she wants.

5) Read: Faulty intel. They were convinced that WMD's were there, and so was everyone else. Had they known beforehand that there weren't WMD's; it's doubtful that the war would've taken place. Nonetheless, Saddam needed to go. We tried diplomacy; we tried passing resolutions, but they were all rejected. If you will remember, right before the war, Bush gave him the ultimatum: "You have 48 hours to disarm and step down before we use force", and he said no. So we used force.

6) I'll actually give you this one. The troops are under-equipped, underfunded, and underpaid. They basically need more of everything. But, in all honesty, we would not have gotten as far as we have if it wasn't winnable. And I gree with you, it is quite hypocritical of Bush to criticize Clinton on that matter. He needs an exit strategy, and badly.

Bush is hypocritical. We need an exit strategy. I am trying to promote healthy discussion on this topic. However if things get overheated i will understand. :sniper:

I have been looking into the anti-war protests that Cindy Sheehan started. I believe that she has the total right to protest. Now I have never agreed with Bush on the Iraqi war. I think it was pointless to Invade Iraq. We had proven that there were no WMD's. Yet Bush continues to use that excuse as a reason for the war. He won't talk to Cindy? Why not? What does our president have to hide? I believe that our First President George Washington would have talked with people about his decisions. This country was founded in the ideals that the leader, the person who represents the whole nation, would actually make decisions that represented what the nation wanted. Do you think that this nation would be a great as it is today is every politician was as anti-social as Bush? Bush says that Cindy is giving support to the enemy and demoralizing the nation. WHAT? Not once did Cindy say that she supported the enemy. And demoralizing the nation? Have you seen Bush's approval rating lately? It is practically non-existint like his brain. Does he even have the Cojones to talk to protesters? His mid has one track. he won't even listen to anything he doesn't agree with. Now that his vacation is over. He can get back to running the country, which I say he doesn't do a good job of but what the heck. Maybe he will actually do something to show he is worth the respect of the Nation. Maybe he can actually run the nation the right way instead of sticking his head up his @$$. One of these days Bush will do something to give us a chance to impeach him. That day can't come soon enough.

What are your opinions?

Wrong Wrong Wrong. America is not a democracy. It is not the President's (nor the Congress's) job to do only what the people want. His job is to do what he thinks is in the nation's interest. And that is exactly what Bush is doing.

Wrong Wrong Wrong. America is not a democracy. It is not the President's (nor the Congress's) job to do only what the people want. His job is to do what he thinks is in the nation's interest. And that is exactly what Bush is doing.

Exactly. He's doing what he thinks is in the nation's best interests. However, he's not doing what is in our best interests. He's almost doing the exact opposite.

Exactly. He's doing what he thinks is in the nation's best interests. However, he's not doing what is in our best interests. He's almost doing the exact opposite.

Amen to that.

First of all, calm down.

1) How about stability in Iraq? How about democratic reforms across the middle east? It's fucked up to say that we should pull out now, islamic terrorists will take over, more people will die, and then Bush WILL be to blame. Now that we are there, we must stick it out for both political and humanitarian reasons.

2) Well, they had elections back in the winter, and I'd say that's one aspect of a democracy. They're drafting a constitution, that's another aspect of a democracy. So there are competing factions. So what? This is one of the foundations of democracy, the party system. Do democrats get what they want? Do republicans? Hell, how many political parties are there in the US, and do they get even some of what they want? There will be democracy in Iraq, but it will take a while. How long did it take from the Articles of confederation to the Constitution? Building a democracy takes time.

3) He's stated this. The Iraqi people need stability, and they just don't have it.

4) Yes, he has. They're just not the answers she wants.

5) Read: Faulty intel. They were convinced that WMD's were there, and so was everyone else. Had they known beforehand that there weren't WMD's; it's doubtful that the war would've taken place. Nonetheless, Saddam needed to go. We tried diplomacy; we tried passing resolutions, but they were all rejected. If you will remember, right before the war, Bush gave him the ultimatum: "You have 48 hours to disarm and step down before we use force", and he said no. So we used force.

6) I'll actually give you this one. The troops are under-equipped, underfunded, and underpaid. They basically need more of everything. But, in all honesty, we would not have gotten as far as we have if it wasn't winnable. And I gree with you, it is quite hypocritical of Bush to criticize Clinton on that matter. He needs an exit strategy, and badly.


1. Iraq WAS stable, until we went in there and bombed the fuck out of the place. Not that Saddam was a good guy, but Iraq WAS stable.

2. They had elections of candidates that were chosen FOR them.,...by US. They didn't get to choose their own candidates. Some liberation. Some democracy.

3. They HAD stability until King Sadim (reverse Midas - everything he touches turns into a great big pile of shit) came riding in like a bull in a china shop.

4. No, she wants TRUTHFUL ANSWERS. Not half-answers, dodging and evasion, like the press lets him get away with. SHE WANTS THE FUCKING TRUTH.

5. Faulty intel, my ass. DELIBERATELY FAULTY INTEL is closer to the truth. And if it hadn't been that, it woulda been something else...Bush was determined from the very first day of his Presidency, to go after Iraq, in his own little Operation Anigo Montoya.

6. Damn right we need an exit strategy. And that is one of the things Cindy is demanding from our President. why did you go in there with no exit strategy...especially after you, as Governor of Texas, criticized Bill Clinton for going into Kosovo without an exit strategy, and why did you demand of Clinton an exit strategy, yet refuse to provide an exit strategy when one is demanded of you?

In other words, Cindy wants to call Bush a hypocrite right to his face, and hold him accountable for his actions....something the Corporate Media refuses to do.

bush just can't take criticism. Typical conservative...he can dish it out, but he can't take it.

Lyric, I shall hand you this cookie.

*hands*

You deserve it.

Lyric. I will hand you another cookie. Hands You really deserve it.

Lyric, I shall hand you this cookie.

*hands*

You deserve it.

Why, thank you very much!!

**devours cookie**

and here's something for you...:fluffle:

Lyric. I will hand you another cookie. Hands You really deserve it.

**devours second cookie**

:fluffle:

GO CINDY!

i am behind her 100%. YES i agree with some people when they say that there is a risk when you sign up for war, to die...HOWEVER...WE NEVER SHOULD OF BEEN IN IRAQ....For that matter at war at all. Iraq DID NOTHING AGAINST THE U.S of A. I consider myself to be a moderate most of the time, however BUSH SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN RE-ELECTED.. He is the President and he should have some type of control over what goes on in the U.S, he also should be a man and meet with Cindy Sheehan, He works for US, the people... For the U.S was founded on the principle: A government ran by the people, for the people, of the people... Last i heard Cindy was People and Bush has nothing better to do...So he should suck it up.

I would like to hear comments..i enjoy friendly debate.

GO CINDY!

i am behind her 100%. YES i agree with some people when they say that there is a risk when you sign up for war, to die...HOWEVER...WE NEVER SHOULD OF BEEN IN IRAQ....For that matter at war at all. Iraq DID NOTHING AGAINST THE U.S of A. I consider myself to be a moderate most of the time, however BUSH SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN RE-ELECTED.. He is the President and he should have some type of control over what goes on in the U.S, he also should be a man and meet with Cindy Sheehan, He works for US, the people... For the U.S was founded on the principle: A government ran by the people, for the people, of the people... Last i heard Cindy was People and Bush has nothing better to do...So he should suck it up.

I would like to hear comments..i enjoy friendly debate.
:confused:
Everybody, all the nations and intelligence agencies, not just USA, believed that Saddam had WMD, heck, even Saddam believed that he had WMDs!

If President Bush has the power to deceive the entire world's intelligence agencies and leaders, you better watch out for him...(monster voice) he's coming for you!

And he was re-elected. We still have elections in the USA. If he was that bad, he would not have had to stand for re-election, he would have just said "hey, I'm the President, if you want me out, come and get me!" and had the might of the most powerful armed forces in the world to back him up!

As for the wished for second meeting between the President and Cindy Sheehan,
Bush would lose either way---meet with Cindy, don't meet with Cindy...there is nothing he can say that she will like, she already said so. She already said that there is nothing he can say to her to change her mind about anything. And would you want to meet with someone who calls you a "maniac" and "the true terrorist?" What good could come of it?

After all, Cindy said that the people in Iraq killing our soldiers are not terrorists, but "freedom fighters," so instead of blaming the "freedom fighters" who killed her son, she blames the President. What about her son? We have no forced conscription in the US! He joined of his own free will. Right after 9/11, if I hadn't been too old, I would have joined as well. And my daughter is in the Army right now. Her fiance is in Iraq at this time. I pray he comes home to her safe and sound. But I am for increased force in the world. I say, increase the military budget, increase recruitment, raise the age so I can join, and lets go kick evil's ass, where ever it hides! :mp5:

Cindy Sheen has every right to protest and bush really should have spoken to her, and in his silence he has caused a circus. As for his smearing i think thats just really irresponsible and childish. He should if anything talk to her, but if he feels he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to. As for the white house saying shes making political gain off of greef and tragity they should remember 9/11 and how they capitalized off of that.

As for people saying bush is "corrupt" i have to dissaggree. i honestly don't believe he has hidden motives or an agenda which has to do with him or his family making money of the suffering of famlies here and in the United States and in other countries. i do believe his agenda is written by the christian consertive right, but thats his base and it has gotten him elected twice. I do not know who said it but some1 stated that "Bush has not used WMD'S as an excusse to stay" which is very true. TRUE there are no weapons own by Saddam found in Iraq, and the intellegence givin to him (which i do believe everyone thought was credible and NOT made up to start a war for oil or such) was wrong. this brings me to the one thing that REALLY infuriates me, that he won't fire people and hire new different people. If i recieved wrong information time and time again from credible sources checked over and over, i'd fire someone. I have no clue why he doesn't fires Rumsfeld or Condi. Some generals wanted more troops in Iraq and claimed there would be a need for more troops there. He fired these, who now we see are right, and the ones who said it would be easy and with minimal troops, should be fired. Rove was said to be involved with that name leek in the FBI, which bush claimed to get to the bottom of and fire who ever was involved. Ok so there is not concrete evidence aggenst Rove but i don't know why Bush doesn't work at it and really demand answers.

As for those who have a problem with Bush, well it was in ur hands to fire him but you just could not get the votes out. Also more people voted in Iraq for constutional delegates then those in the presidential election. Shows which country really wants a change more.

The man was a middling student, a partying, woman chasing f*&%-up with DUI's

...like most kids are at that age? I mean, come on. You can't judge a man on something he did 30 years ago as a kid. Besides, what do you expect from a 20-ish year old guy?

Exactly. He's doing what he thinks is in the nation's best interests. However, he's not doing what is in our best interests. He's almost doing the exact opposite.

Too bad you don't speak for the nation. Obviously, Bush was re-elected last year, so he must be doing what the American people believe to be in their best interests.

he also should be a man and meet with Cindy Sheehan

Honestly, if I were him, I wouldn't want to meet her either... especially after all of the names she called him. Why should he take the time to meet with anyone that wanted to meet him?

If you are too lazy to look anything up, no wonder you dont how corrupt the man is. Maybe you should read about his family's business dealings with the Saudi's. How about his Vice President's connections to the corporation Halliburton who has most of the contracts in Iraq? Do a little reading.

Ah, yes. Conspiracy theories can be quite appealing to us simple folks. :)

--snip--
well the fact that he was re-elected kinda indicates that what ever he is doing hes doing it right

So. [dramatic pause] Just a thought. Have you ever criticized Clinton? Didja feel he was doing the right things all the time?

Take your time.

Too bad you don't speak for the nation. Obviously, Bush was re-elected last year, so he must be doing what the American people believe to be in their best interests.

The interests of a percentage of the ~50,000,000 who did vote for him. There's almost 200,000,000 people who didn't. He isn't doing what's in the best interests of our nation.

Oh, wait, I almost forgot. Republicans are the only mentally capable people in this country. The rest need only be ignored.

:rolleyes:

He did meet with Sheehan. a couple years ago. they had a talk, and she said that her family felt better afterwards. now she's condemning him for the same thing she supposedly forgave him for. also, alot of what she says borders on antisemitism.


In regards to the whole election thing. you need to shut up and respect the will of the majority. I have seen, during the last couple elections, some of the most dirty tactics to try and secure the vote for the democrats. in florida a couple democratic supporters actually tried to forge ballots. i've seen them bus in homeless people with promises of money to vote democrat, and then there's the whole five hundred recounts in a row. here's a hint, in you recount the votes twice, and both times they come up with the origional winner, then chances are good that it'll come up the same way the next fifty times.

the fact is, the people wanted buch in office. the majority chose bush. get off your elitist high horse and fucking get it into your head that this is how democracy works. for better or worse, bush is the president, i don't like it, you don't like it, but that's the fact.

she said that her family felt better afterwards.

Oh, really? I remember that she was very pissed off, because he acted all aloof like he didn't know what he was meeting them for.

Double owned. Nice posts by Schrandtopia and Haloman :cool:

200 million people did not vote, thats depressing. The apathy in this country is sickening, but in this country we have the right not to vote. I bet many of the people who did not vote dissapproved with what bush has been doing, but for some reason they just didn't vote. Democrats really need to find out why. Lets not get into this tho, this is not wha this debate is about

Also about clinton, many Republicans got on his back during his second term in Office. While Republicans whinned over crime, the surplus, Kosovo, and how can we forget the sex scandal, Osama was running around in his caves. Hell they even bombed the USS Cole, many forget about that, and they have the right to. No one remember is because it was just a side story to what Clinton was doing with Monica.

As to the Dirty tactics in florida by democrats, thats only illigal, and the Republicans would be whining about it for a LONG time. i doubt thats true but i will leave it as that it did happen.

Back to Cindy and Georgies ruined vacation, How is what Cindy says antisemitic

Sheehan wasn't always anti-Bush. When she met with Bush, she wasn't so liberally liberal. Now, she's calling him every name in the book, pledged to ignore whatever he says, blames him for killing her son when he died doing something he knew might kill him, and has the nerve to demand time for the president to hear some more of her BS. I have seen some of her protests. They are more like smear compaigns. I wouldn't be surprised if she was a terrorist. Plus, of the 200 million people who didn't vote for Bush, 150 million didn't even bother voting. So that's 200 million who didn't vote for Kerry. How's them apples?

Now, she's calling him every name in the book, pledged to ignore whatever he says, blames him for killing her son when he died doing something he knew might kill him, and has the nerve to demand time for the president to hear some more of her BS. I have seen some of her protests. They are more like smear compaigns. I wouldn't be surprised if she was a terrorist.

Yes, damn those American citizens for wanting accountability from the President!

They're terrorists all! Kill them! KILL ThEm! KIIIIIILLLLLL THHHHHEEEEEM AALLLLLLL! AAAAAAAARGH!!!111one111one1!

Cheap shot. Just what you'd expect from someone who cannot debate the legitimate points. Instead of taking on the message, and the points of the debate, he attacks the messenger. Typical tactic of one who knows he cannot win the debate.

Okay, great master of legitimate points, I'll once-over the points you made up to this statement.

1. How is it "fucked up" to believe that the Iraq war was not worth her son's death? And what is so bad about demanding that Bush answer what exactly this "noble cause" her son DIED for even IS?? He hasn't been straight with the American Public, the Congress, the UN, or anyone else, from day one, as to what this war was even ABOUT. The answer kept changing as conditions changed. cindy wants to know exactly, once and for all WHAT THE FUCK IS THE NOBLE CAUSE HER SON HAD TO DIE FOR?? I don't think it's unreasonable to demand the President answer that question.

Do you actually think that would help? Do you actually think old Cindy would go, "Oh, that's why?" and stop hating Bush and stop protesting the war? No. So what's the point, other than to waste his time on one more pissed off protestor?

Or maybe he could send his daughters, since it is SUCH a noble cause?

Parents don't send their children to war. What a legitimate comment.

2. There is no democracy in Iraq, and there won't be. Too many competing factions, all of whom have no experience with the kind of give and take that will be needed to build a Democracy.

Wrong, the government is being built as a democracy, and will be one very shortly.

Not everyone gets everything they want. Compromises are made on both sides. Or in the case of Iraq...all four sides (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, and the United States.) No one is gonna walk out of there with everything they want...or even most of it. The three parties in Iraq have no experience in compromise, and Bush doesn't either. Certainly, Bush has no DESIRE to compromise, either. He's demonstrated as much with his domestic policies. Why would we think his foreign policy would be anything other than his domestic policy, which is basically, "My way or the highway?"

God forbid a president try to enact policies that he wants to enact.

3. Which is exactly why sheehan wants to talk to the President. WHY are we staying there? WHAT is this "noble cause" my son had to die for? WHY did we go in the first place? These are not unreasonable questions, and it is not unreasonable to demand that Bush take accountability for his actions.

Questions that have been asked many times before, have been answered many times before, and the answers to which will not affect her views of or actions against the war effort.

4. He hasn't answered her questions.

No, but a thousand other people have.

5. The majority wanted to go to war, because we were fed false and misleading information. Information that Bush KNEW DAMN WELL was false and misleading.

"Arrr, damn that liar, the government's out to get us, rabble rabble rabble."

Sorry, couldn't resist. That, too, was a very legitimate and well-thought-out point.

6. And Bush is helping the troops? Oh, yeah, I forgot...he's helpinig the troops by showing up with a plastic turkey, and by cutting veterans benefits and hazardous duty pay for combat soldier in wartime...sending them into urban combat underequipped, undermanned, undertrained, and unprepared, he has no exit strategy whatsoever...he's basically sending them into an unwinnable war. And how is THAT "supporting the troops?" And why is an rxit strategy unimportant when it's BUSH waging the war, but, when he was Gubnor of Texas, he saw fit to criticize Clinton over Kosovo for HAVING NO EXIT STRATEGY!! And this fucker DARES to call KERRY a "flip-flopper??" WTF?!?!

"Rarrr, that fucker, how dare he? Rabble rabble rabble."

*clears throat*

And here I thought the government was in place, the new constitution was nearing completion, and plans have been expressed to have troops out before the end of Bush's term. But who am I?



I'm sorry, Lyric. Much more attention I should have paid to your incredibly legitimate points, to your impressive command of the English language, and to your amazing skills in the art of debate that I so obviously lack. I was wrong to take a cheap shot for a few laughs instead of arguing a topic I've argued a hundred times before, because the Lord knows I'm supposed to answer every single rant on why Bush is out to get us. My sincerest apologies.

It’s been reported that from day one of the Bush administration the question was how to get us into Iraq. 9/1/01 happened and Bush used it to further his own personal agenda of invading Iraq rather than taking care of destroying the terrorists who attacked us based in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So in the beginning we invaded Afghanistan, were in the process of rooting out terrorism, women had rights for the first time and THEN WE DROPPED THE BALL. Now, due to the shortage of troops in Afghanistan things are going back to the SOS.
Bush knew from inspectors from the UN and the US that there were no WMDs and deliberately manipulated the intelligence to fit his own personal agenda.
The Bush administration stated to the UN that Iraq had WMDs and that we KNEW WHERE THEY WERE ! UNCATEGORICALLY, THEY KNEW WHERE THEY WERE. Oh well..mistakes happen.
A short time ago Laura Bush and Rice were saying how great it is that the women in Iraq will have a say in their government. Now they’re strangely silent after the one thing the Iraqis can agree on is that in their constitution, there shall be no law conflicting with Islamic religion ! What’s the Bush administration’s reply to this? To paraphrase, “in the total scheme of things women’s rights aren’t all that important”.
Now we’re in a helluva mess in Iraq. The one thing I agree with Bush is that we can’t just walk out now. I don’t know how we’re going to get out of this. We’ll probably stay there for a while and then leave and then we’ll see the same thing occur that happened after we bugged out of Vietnam.

Yes, damn those American citizens for wanting accountability from the President!

They're terrorists all! Kill them! KILL ThEm! KIIIIIILLLLLL THHHHHEEEEEM AALLLLLLL! AAAAAAAARGH!!!111one111one1!

You're twisting my words. Have you ever heard what she says? She's borderline-anti-American. She's unwilling to believe that she might not be always right about Bush. She's calling him a murderer because her son VOLUNTEERED to do something he KNEW MIGHT KILL HIM. If anything, it's her son's fault he's dead. He could have stayed home if he wanted to. He could have stayed behind and not volunteered to go on the rescue mission he died on. He knew the risks. He did it anyway. Bush didn't kidnap him and send him to the firing squad in shackles. She's becoming an extreme liberal. I wouldn't be surprised if she even tried to kill Bush if he ever meets with her again.

:confused:
Everybody, all the nations and intelligence agencies, not just USA, believed that Saddam had WMD, heck, even Saddam believed that he had WMDs! Well, that's just plain wrong. Few of the major intelligence agencies even believed he had WMDs and none of them believed he had them in the numbers bush presented. http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html



If President Bush has the power to deceive the entire world's intelligence agencies and leaders, you better watch out for him...(monster voice) he's coming for you! Read real news, stop parroting false republican talking points.

And he was re-elected. We still have elections in the USA. If he was that bad, he would not have had to stand for re-election, he would have just said "hey, I'm the President, if you want me out, come and get me!" and had the might of the most powerful armed forces in the world to back him up!
I'm not even going to dignify this bit of delusion with an answer.

As for the wished for second meeting between the President and Cindy Sheehan,
Bush would lose either way---meet with Cindy, don't meet with Cindy...there is nothing he can say that she will like, she already said so. She already said that there is nothing he can say to her to change her mind about anything. And would you want to meet with someone who calls you a "maniac" and "the true terrorist?" What good could come of it? If Bush would have met with her on the first day she would have been forced to go away and the press would have gone with her. Thankfully the usual Bush doctrine of evading questions was used once again.

After all, Cindy said that the people in Iraq killing our soldiers are not terrorists, but "freedom fighters," so instead of blaming the "freedom fighters" who killed her son, she blames the President. Right, and if I throw you off a cliff your mother can blame we too. But then again it really isn't my fault, after all, you came to the cliff of your own free will. What about her son? He's dead. We have no forced conscription in the US! He joined of his own free will. Right after 9/11, if I hadn't been too old, I would have joined as well. So he joined to fight terrorists and was sent to die in a land unrelated to them. Kinda like joining up after Pearl Harbor and being sent to war in Canada. And my daughter is in the Army right now. Her fiance is in Iraq at this time. I pray he comes home to her safe and sound. And I wish them luck. May God stand between them and harm in all the empty places they must walk. But I am for increased force in the world. I say, increase the military budget, increase recruitment, raise the age so I can join, and lets go kick evil's ass, where ever it hides! :mp5: Except by making yourself a world thug you would be the evil you resent. Face facts, the whole world does not want the American lifestyle.

Back to Cindy and Georgies ruined vacation, How is what Cindy says antisemitic

I said "alot" of what she said. it just came off as borderline antisemetic to me. maybe it's the use of the phrases "Neo-con," "My son should have died for America, not Israel," ect., i guess i just associated that with antisemitism. then there's one of her supporters. (http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350)

here's a few links.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009 (check the movie)
http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/blog/archives/2005/08/cindy_sheehan_h.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Cindy%20Sheehan.htm
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17039_Daily_Kos_Parasites&only
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/236483_robert13.html

I said "alot" of what she said. it just came off as borderline antisemetic to me. maybe it's the use of the phrases "Neo-con," "My son should have died for America, not Israel," ect., i guess i just associated that with antisemitism. then there's one of her [url=http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350]supporters.

here's a few links.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009 (check the movie)
http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/blog/archives/2005/08/cindy_sheehan_h.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Cindy%20Sheehan.htm
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17039_Daily_Kos_Parasites&only
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/236483_robert13.html

Well, that didn't take long for someone to join the "Anyone who has any problems with Israel hates Jews!!11!one" bandwagon. Not unpredictable but still very sad.

"Right, and if I throw you off a cliff your mother can blame we too. But then again it really isn't my fault, after all, you came to the cliff of your own free will."

Out of context. Bush didn't draft him. Bush didn't grab him. Her son joined again, knowing that he would go to Iraq. He went on the rescue mission instead of staying behind like he was offered. Get your facts straight before you start spouting out unappropriate and incorrect examples.

Well, that didn't take long for someone to join the "Anyone who has any problems with Israel hates Jews!!11!one" bandwagon. Not unpredictable but still very sad.

you know what's even more sad?

jumping to the conclusion that i'm jumping on a bandwagon. even more predictable, too.

Know what's even sadder? Isreal has nothing to do with her son dying in Iraq. She just can't accept the fact that he wanted to join the military again. It's not his fault he joined because of his decisions that he made by himself. He's a hero, not a victim of Bush's non-existant draft.

You're twisting my words. Have you ever heard what she says? She's borderline-anti-American. She's unwilling to believe that she might not be always right about Bush. She's calling him a murderer because her son VOLUNTEERED to do something he KNEW MIGHT KILL HIM. If anything, it's her son's fault he's dead. He could have stayed home if he wanted to. He could have stayed behind and not volunteered to go on the rescue mission he died on. He knew the risks. He did it anyway. Bush didn't kidnap him and send him to the firing squad in shackles. She's becoming an extreme liberal. I wouldn't be surprised if she even tried to kill Bush if he ever meets with her again.

And you're calling her a terrorist because you can't accept that Bush may just be wrong. And she is in no way extreme. Marx was extreme. Pol Pot was extreme. Sheehan is on the left side of centre at best.

"Right, and if I throw you off a cliff your mother can blame we too. But then again it really isn't my fault, after all, you came to the cliff of your own free will."

Out of context. Bush didn't draft him. Bush didn't grab him. Her son joined again, knowing that he would go to Iraq. He went on the rescue mission instead of staying behind like he was offered. Get your facts straight before you start spouting out unappropriate and incorrect examples.There was no context to take it out of. If he joined up to fight terrorism, and seeing as how he joined right after 9/11 he almost certainly did, he went intot he army under false pretenses. He came to the cliff for the view and was thrown off for the oil. Lack of reading comprehension on your part does not equal inaccuracy on mine.


you know what's even more sad?

jumping to the conclusion that i'm jumping on a bandwagon. even more predictable, too.] I didn't jump to any conclusions. At best I shuffled. You said ""My son should have died for America, not Israel," ect., i guess i just associated that with antisemitism." What other possible interpretation of that could there be than people who don't want to die for Israel are antisemitic?

What other possible interpretation of that could there be than people who don't want to die for Israel are antisemitic?

So then anyone who doesn't want to die for Iran is antimuslim?
And anyone who doesn't want to die for the pope is antiCatholic?

There was no context to take it out of. If he joined up to fight terrorism, and seeing as how he joined right after 9/11 he almost certainly did, he went intot he army under false pretenses. He came to the cliff for the view and was thrown off for the oil. Lack of reading comprehension on your part does not equal inaccuracy on mine.

You're just plain wrong here. Your analogy is way off. When you go to a cliff, you don't expect to be pushed off. You expect a pretty view. When you join the army, you expect that there is a chance you'll go to war. When you go to war, you expect that there's a chance you'll be restationed. If you don't expect either of those things, you're in denial. Inaccuracy on your part does not equal lack of reading comprehension on his.

1. I never said I believed Sheehan was a terrorist. I just said that I wouldn't be surprised if she was. Big difference.

2. Her son died in Iraq. Isreal has nothing to do with that.

3. He joined after 9/11. He came home. He joined AGAIN later. The Iraq war was going on. He was given the option of not going on that fateful rescue mission. He chose to go on the rescue mission. He died on that rescue mission. Not having to go is not being forced to go.

So then anyone who doesn't want to die for Iran is antimuslim?
And anyone who doesn't want to die for the pope is antiCatholic?

Interesting point. Well spotted.

You're just plain wrong here. Your analogy is way off. When you go to a cliff, you don't expect to be pushed off. You expect a pretty view. When you join the army, you expect that there is a chance you'll go to war. When you go to war, you expect that there's a chance you'll be restationed. If you don't expect either of those things, you're in denial. Inaccuracy on your part does not equal lack of reading comprehension on his. Are you serious? Are you telling me there isn't a chance you will fall to your death when you go to cliffs? Or perhaps you just never expected it as a possibility.

When you join up in an army being regeared to fight terrorism, you might expect to, oh, I don't know, fight terrorism. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is akin to joining up after Pearl Harbor and being sent to war in Canada.

1. I never said I believed Sheehan was a terrorist. I just said that I wouldn't be surprised if she was. Big difference. Right, aged white christian women are found frequently among the ranks of perverted Islamic terrorists.

2. Her son died in Iraq. Isreal has nothing to do with that. Debatable. Most of our involvement in the Middle East is related to Oil or Israel. Or both.

3. He joined after 9/11. He came home. He joined AGAIN later. The Iraq war was going on. He was given the option of not going on that fateful rescue mission. He chose to go on the rescue mission. He died on that rescue mission. Not having to go is not being forced to go.
Source? I seem to recall terms of service being somewhat longer than the one and a half years between 9/11/01 and 3/20/03.

Interesting point. Well spotted.

Are you serious? Are you telling me there isn't a chance you will fall to your death when you go to cliffs? Or perhaps you just never expected it as a possibility.

No, not really, not unless you do something stupid, e.g. stand on the edge or jump up and down, but doing something stupid can get you killed anywhere in the U.S. as well. The cliff isn't going to grab you and fling you off.

When you join up in an army being regeared to fight terrorism, you might expect to, oh, I don't know, fight terrorism. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is akin to joining up after Pearl Harbor and being sent to war in Canada.

No, it's not, because he was still fighting terrorism. The insurgents are terrorists. Just because they're in Iraq and not Afghanistan doesn't mean they aren't terrorists.

1. I never said I believed Sheehan was a terrorist. I just said that I wouldn't be surprised if she was. Big difference.

Not that big. Clearly you're leaning in the direction of believing she's a terrorist.

2. Her son died in Iraq. Isreal has nothing to do with that.

3. He joined after 9/11. He came home. He joined AGAIN later. The Iraq war was going on. He was given the option of not going on that fateful rescue mission. He chose to go on the rescue mission. He died on that rescue mission. Not having to go is not being forced to go.

Which has anything to do with my post how...?

No, not really, not unless you do something stupid, e.g. stand on the edge or jump up and down, but doing something stupid can get you killed anywhere in the U.S. as well. The cliff isn't going to grab you and fling you off. being flung is merely an example fo a way to die. A landslide could take you, slipping, stumbling, etc. could all do the same. Same is true of Iraq, the potential to die is there but there are many different ways it can happen. Helicopter crash, roadside bomb, etc. The analogy holds.



No, it's not, because he was still fighting terrorism. No. We aren't. The insurgents are terrorists. Point of fact, there were no insurgents in Iraq before we went in and thus we could not have gone in to fight insurgent terrorists. Just because they're in Iraq and not Afghanistan doesn't mean they aren't terrorists.
Indeed. It is everything else that indicates they aren't.

We have some pretty wacky liberals here who think Bush-supporters, like my "take the lesser evil" self, worship Bush. Face it. I don't think he's always right. He hasn't done enough about the border. His "no child left behind" program is laughable at best. He probably should send fewer, but better prepared troops instead of more walking targets. Those are the things I believe.

if sheehan just wanted an explaination for why we went to war that would be one thing

but she wants us to drop everything and run - and that is simply not acceptable

W should not meet with her unless she is elected to congress

being flung is merely an example fo a way to die. A landslide could take you, slipping, stumbling, etc. could all do the same. Same is true of Iraq, the potential to die is there but there are many different ways it can happen. Helicopter crash, roadside bomb, etc. The analogy holds.

Okay, I'll give you the landslide. The slipping and stumbling are acts of stupidity if they happen when you're standing too close to the cliff. But the analogy does not hold, because the landslide without an external stimulus is infinitely less likely than the death in war.

Point of fact, there were no insurgents in Iraq before we went in and thus we could not have gone in to fight insurgent terrorists.

You're right, we went in to fight indirect supporters of terrorism - as they were in support of Saddam's regime - so we were still fighting terrorism.

Okay, I'll give you the landslide. The slipping and stumbling are acts of stupidity if they happen when you're standing too close to the cliff. But the analogy does not hold, because the landslide without an external stimulus is infinitely less likely than the death in war. I would contend many of the deaths in Iraq too could have been avoided by a little less stupidity. Proper armor, more troops, better training, an actual strategy, etc. If they had bothered to armor Hummers correctly and provide proper mainatanence on Helicopters we may well be facing half the death toll we have now.

You're right, we went in to fight indirect supporters of terrorism - as they were in support of Saddam's regime - so we were still fighting terrorism.
Riddle me this, what act of terrorism did Saddam commit we did not either specifically permit or deliberately let slide. Are we then, for allowing this, indirect supporters of terrorism as well? Further, are our actions in Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and rendition, what with the murder, the rape, the torture, etc. make us practicioners of terrorism?

1) Of course she has the right to protest, she retains the right to believe whatever the hell she wants, regardless of how fucked up it may be.

2) Replacing a tyrannical regime with a democracy is not pointless.

3) The UN has concluded that, but they still may be out there, but it's doubtful. And Bush does not use this as a reason for us to stay.

4) He doesn't talk to her because he already has.

5) The majority of the US wanted to go to war when we invaded Iraq.

6) She's not necesarily supporting the enemy, but she sure as hell ain't helping the troops. She's associated herself with radical leftists like Michael Moore, who has the gall to call the insurgents 'minutemen', basically equating them to the minutemen of the American Revolution. Guilty by association.

7) Newsflash: Bush does not control every aspect of this nation. Blaming him for the death of our soldiers just doesn't cut it. They knew full well when they signed up that they could die. Another newsflash: Things aren't that terrible in America. In fact, they're pretty decent. Maybe you should get YOUR head out of YOUR ass.


1. Right to protest- you're damn right there.

2. Democracy? Yeah, that Constitution's going REAL well...

3. I'm not using WMD as an excuse for why we need to stay in Iraq, I'm using them as an excuse for why the war was so @#$%^Q%^ up in the first place that we have no right to be there.

4. Ok, that's a good point. I support what she stands for, not her specific demands.

5. Majority rule. At different times, that has been used to support the killing of all races and religions, the inquisition, Vietnam, and tons of other $#!^ to lenghty for me to name here. Case in point: stop.

6. Bush hung out with Ken Lay. Is he a criminal? Besides, the 'minute man' comment was meant to mean that iraq would win because they had the small, 'blacksmith by day, rebel by night' operations that the revolution had, which helped it to beat, the large, unwieldly British army. At least, that's what I thought it meant.

7. If I walked into a McDonalds... and the floor was dirty, the food terrible, and a rat was in my seat... I'd want the manager fired. And yes, things are good in the USA. I hope the head in ass comment was not directed at me, so I won't ansewer it.

her son would be embaressed. I no bush was wrong about the war, and i no longer think its necessary. But, this lady is making way toooo big a deal.
A. she often forgets to mention that the mission her son died on was volunteer only(as was the army he joined) and that it was explained to be extremely dangerous to him before he volunteered.
B. She does not believe her 1 sons life ways up against the dead bodies found in the mass graves. I have deepest regrets to anyone who died in the war and their family, but this lady sheesh.
C. Do you think every family marchs up to the president and demands to talk with him. No. News Flash lady: Your son isnt the only dead one!
D. Leave politics to the politicians. You dont like the war? Then vote for someone who doesnt like the war either

like i said, her son would be embaressed.

I'm going to sleep.

I would contend many of the deaths in Iraq too could have been avoided by a little less stupidity. Proper armor, more troops, better training, an actual strategy, etc. If they had bothered to armor Hummers correctly and provide proper mainatanence on Helicopters we may well be facing half the death toll we have now.

But that's management stupidity, not individual stupidity. The latter is what kills the guy on the cliff, and the latter is what would be required for Cindy's son not to expect a small chance of dying.

Riddle me this, what act of terrorism did Saddam commit we did not either specifically permit or deliberately let slide. Are we then, for allowing this, indirect supporters of terrorism as well? Further, are our actions in Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and rendition, what with the murder, the rape, the torture, etc. make us practicioners of terrorism?

I don't agree with letting a lot of that shit slide, so don't ask me. I'm very militarily proactive; I say hit countries that could become problematic before that happens. Saddam would have been out after he killed 10,000 Kurds if I had anything to say about it. I don't agree with half of what our presidents do. I do understand that we can't deal with everything, however, which is why we didn't deal with Iraq sooner, and only did when British and Russian intel revealed a threat - however incorrect said intel was. Besides, letting something slide is not the same as defending it. Letting something slide implies that you don't want to deal with it, or don't find it worth addressing. Defending something shows that you are willing to fight and die for it, which is supporting it, and if what you are supporting is endorsing terrorist regimes worldwide, you're indirectly supporting terrorism.

Bush fucked up and he knows it. He knows leaving Iraq is a bad idea and he's too proud to admit that he's messed up and fix it. Just trying to fix it would reveal that he messed to the public up in his mind. It's how millions of people would react. It's perfectly human. They're too proud to admit they've made a mistake. It doesn't mean he's a bad person, it means he's human. The reason for the Iraq is lost and irrelavant at this point. It's just being used as an old point that has no real meaning anymore. It would be simple enough to admit that the nation is more important than his own pride and then get the job done.

Honestly, though, I think the American people and the American buisnesses have a lot of blame to take. I know most of the buisnesses are going overseas, but we can really help the war effort if we kick open these factories again and start building the armor for the Humvees and making the armor for the soldiers. Here in the Furniture Capital of the South, we can really use the factories to help the war effort and create a lot of jobs by using the closed down plants and revamping them. That way our soldiers won't be underequipped.

If the people don't have faith in the government, the government won't have faith in itself. That passes on to the military and then to the soldiers themselves. If we simply trust the government to do its job, it will do it. We won't wind up attacking Iran or some other nation, we're already too deep with Iraq. We need more troops and equipment and we can only get these through the people.

And before anyone says again that our soldiers should die for America and not some other nation, please remember that the people of Iraq and the Middle East in general are all humans, too, not some alien race on an alien planet.

If we can get a president that can say he's made a mistake to the public, we have a damn fine president.

Bush fucked up and he knows it. He knows leaving Iraq is a bad idea and he's too proud to admit that he's messed up and fix it.

but she isn't asking for that, she wants way way way more than that

I know most of the buisnesses are going overseas, but we can really help the war effort if we kick open these factories again and start building the armor for the Humvees and making the armor for the soldiers.

we can't do that for the same reason those factories left in the first place; unions

and anywho; I'm tried of hearing about the humvees, they were never built for this to begin with

But that's management stupidity, not individual stupidity. The latter is what kills the guy on the cliff, and the latter is what would be required for Cindy's son not to expect a small chance of dying. True enough. But following my analogy, the person responsible for the death would have been myself in the role of the manager by actually throwing him off the cliff. By the same token, the death of many soldiers was due to managerial stupidity. At the same time, when going to the top of a cliff one expects there to be at least some danger of falling in the same sense that when one joins the military there is a small chance of dying.



I don't agree with letting a lot of that shit slide, so don't ask me. I'm very militarily proactive; I say hit countries that could become problematic before that happens. Saddam would have been out after he killed 10,000 Kurds if I had anything to say about it. I don't agree with half of what our presidents do. I do understand that we can't deal with everything, however, which is why we didn't deal with Iraq sooner, and only did when British and Russian intel revealed a threat - however incorrect said intel was. Besides, letting something slide is not the same as defending it. Letting something slide implies that you don't want to deal with it, or don't find it worth addressing. Defending something shows that you are willing to fight and die for it, which is supporting it, and if what you are supporting is endorsing terrorist regimes worldwide, you're indirectly supporting terrorism.

Well, I disagree on that point. If you have the power to stop an injustice and refuse to exorcise it, you have given at least tacit support for the action. If I am walking down the street with a gun and see someone getting mugged by an unarmed assailant and refuse to render aid, am I also not partly responsible for the results? Further, in the case of Iraq, what choice did the natives have but to support the regime when told to? Like the man who was forced to rob a bank by putting a bomb on him. Surely he wouldn't be held accountable for the robbery when he had no choice under threat of certain death but to go along with it.

I have been looking into the anti-war protests that Cindy Sheehan started. I believe that she has the total right to protest.

People do indeed have the right to become demented in grief to the point that they are used as fleshbots and tools by those with evil minds. Whether or not such is a good idea is another matter.

Now I have never agreed with Bush on the Iraqi war.

Which means that by definition you are not exactly the most objective judge of anything that's "anti war". I respect the fact that you declared your alignment upfront but the fact remains that I doubt you looked for anything that would prove these protests wrong because you had a conscious or subconscious stake in not seeing such.

I think it was pointless to Invade Iraq. We had proven that there were no WMD's.

So why didn't you and your tapeworm speak out? That's a topic for a different thread but in point of fact the preponderance of proof actually ran and still runs the other way. That said, I have to admit it's amusing to watch the cultlike glow in your eye as you say these things that you yourself know aren't true. ;)

Yet Bush continues to use that excuse as a reason for the war. He won't talk to Cindy? Why not?

So we weren't to notice that he already *has* talked to her? :rolleyes:


What does our president have to hide?

Beyond the fact that most "anti war" activists are nothing but a collection of crooks, bums, and traitors? Not a thing! :)

I believe that our First President George Washington would have talked with people about his decisions.

Ooooo, *belief*! And in this day of the Internet you couldn't even be bothered to look up the fact that the opposite was true and that the Father of our Country deliberately cultivated an image of aloofness because he felt it was the way to maintain the dignity of the Republic? Nice to know that Leftists don't read history! :D

This country was founded in the ideals that the leader, the person who represents the whole nation, would actually make decisions that represented what the nation wanted. Do you think that this nation would be a great as it is today is every politician was as anti-social as Bush?

Yes. Not everyone is as in love with door-to-door spammers as you are. :P

Bush says that Cindy is giving support to the enemy and demoralizing the nation. WHAT? Not once did Cindy say that she supported the enemy.

Oh yeah? o_O

http://volokh.com/posts/1125079582.shtml

Casey Sheehan's Mom is being exploited by a crowd of nasty people who are using her as a flesh puppet to spout their words. She's neither the first nor the last to have been brainwashed into joining a nutcult but a nutcult is all it is.

And demoralizing the nation? Have you seen Bush's approval rating lately?


Ooooo, Polls! And we all know that all liberals *must* believe in *all polls* without *ever* asking any questions! *snicker*

I wonder what ever happened to the Left's ability to question authority?:confused:

*snicker* ^~^

But don't worry. I'm sure that President Dewey and President Landon would both agree with you! ^_~

It is practically non-existint like his brain.

Ever notice that a challenge to someone else's intellect makes the challenger look stupid when his challenge contains a mispelling? Just a thought! ;)

Does he even have the Cojones to talk to protesters?


Is it a matter of male reproductive organs or merely a matter of the fact that they are a bunch of dull and silly people? In a contest between them and a showing of Fruit Baskets the Fruit Baskets DVD would win where *I* am concerned. :) :) :)

Shoot in a contest between them and "Paranoia Agent" I would actually choose "Paranoia Agent". :p

His mid has one track.

Wow, I *hope* so! A mid that reversed directions frequently would be a tad unhealthy. ^_^;

he won't even listen to anything he doesn't agree with.

Bit of a difference between listening to something you don't agree with and listening to a crowd of cretins who've never said anything new in 5 years. You might want to ponder that.

Now that his vacation is over. He can get back to running the country, which I say he doesn't do a good job of but what the heck. Maybe he will actually do something to show he is worth the respect of the Nation. Maybe he can actually run the nation the right way instead of sticking his head up his @$$.

Actually, I think he's doing a lot better than the alternates would have. I will note that this paragraph points to why a meeting between him and random leftists would have been a waste of his time. Why talk to people who've made up their minds and are determined to hate you no matter what you do? O_o

One of these days Bush will do something to give us a chance to impeach him. That day can't come soon enough.

The fact that the Left has become a Cargo Cult is sort of underlined by this statement. Ain't gonna happen.

What are your opinions?

Heh. I'm too much the shy and retiring type to say but I suspect by this time you might be able to guess. ^_~

Sheehan, in my opinion, shoudl seriously rethink her point of view. She has no control over what her son does after he leaves the home. He made his own decisions and he did what he wanted to do. It's as simple as that, no more, no less. He knew the consequences but he did them anyway. She shouldn't ask the President what her son fought for, she should have asked her son what he was fighting for before he left again.

Unions have gone way out of control and need to be put into check. There are a lot of things that need to be redone or simply scrapped taht have been in effect since the Great Depression. And one of the problems is the people who own the factories; they won't sell the land to people who can use them. dell offered to make 800 jobs within a few years; Toyota offered to make 900 jobs within a few years. The people who got it offered 50 jobs by 2010.

As for the Unions themselves, dammit, those people should be happy they have a job in the first place. Granted, the employers should make sure that their employees and their families are safe and getting what they need, but that's as far as it should go. The workers work, their employers make sure they have everything they need to work, the employees get paid and feed their families. People are all complaining that there are no jobs, but nobody thinks of what otehr jobs that can be made with the same factories. Just repalce some equipment and computers and you can make Kevlar vests, provided you have the training to do so. I think I'm going to submit this.

1) Of course she has the right to protest, she retains the right to believe whatever the hell she wants, regardless of how fucked up it may be.

2) Replacing a tyrannical regime with a democracy is not pointless.

3) The UN has concluded that, but they still may be out there, but it's doubtful. And Bush does not use this as a reason for us to stay.

4) He doesn't talk to her because he already has.

5) The majority of the US wanted to go to war when we invaded Iraq.

6) She's not necesarily supporting the enemy, but she sure as hell ain't helping the troops. She's associated herself with radical leftists like Michael Moore, who has the gall to call the insurgents 'minutemen', basically equating them to the minutemen of the American Revolution. Guilty by association.

7) Newsflash: Bush does not control every aspect of this nation. Blaming him for the death of our soldiers just doesn't cut it. They knew full well when they signed up that they could die. Another newsflash: Things aren't that terrible in America. In fact, they're pretty decent. Maybe you should get YOUR head out of YOUR ass.


Dude, you should go get cloned.

5. The majority wanted to go to war, because we were fed false and misleading information. Information that Bush KNEW DAMN WELL was false and misleading.

Hmmm, did Kerry and Clinton know the info. was false and misleading as well? They echoed and repeated it, are they liars too?

Just a question (that extreme liberals duck, dodge and refuse to answer).

Dude, you should go get cloned.
Indeed. Then he would have to listen to himself.

Indeed. Then he would have to listen to himself.

That would guarantee him a lifetime of intelligent conversations. :)

Or the same conversation over and over and over again.

That would guarantee him a lifetime of intelligent conversations. :)
Indeed. If he heard himself for thirty minutes he would be inspired to do a little research on what is actually going on before talking about it. Before long intelligent conversation would be a certainty.

I wouldn't be surprised if she was a terrorist.
Shame on you if you are going to call her a terrorist. She lost her son in Iraq. What sacrifice have you made?

Shame on you if you are going to call her a terrorist. She lost her son in Iraq. What has your sacrifice have you made?
Did you not read his message? He said, and I quote (Once again):
"I would not be surprised if she was a terrorist."
He did NOT say, as you are twisting to make seem true,
"She is probably a terrorist."
Please READ the message before you quote it.

:confused:
Everybody, all the nations and intelligence agencies, not just USA, believed that Saddam had WMD...Powerful...isn't it? The US media

Indeed. If he heard himself for thirty minutes he would be inspired to do a little research on what is actually going on before talking about it. Before long intelligent conversation would be a certainty.

His research seems spot-on already. I note with interest that nobody on the Left has been able to refute anything he wrote in that post. :D


Or the same conversation over and over and over again.

Heh. Maybe. But I suspect that divergence would occur no matter how much they shared the same environment. Cloning is nothing more than identical twins done the hard way. ^_~

"I would not be surprised if she was a terrorist."
He did NOT say, as you are twisting to make seem true,
"She is probably a terrorist."I would not be surprised if Green-Sun was an idiot.

And OceanDrive 2 should know that Green Sun can report him for flaming now.

5. The majority wanted to go to war, because we were fed false and misleading information. Information that Bush KNEW DAMN WELL was false and misleading.

Hmmm, did Kerry and Clinton know the info. was false and misleading as well? They echoed and repeated it, are they liars too?

Just a question (that extreme liberals duck, dodge and refuse to answer).

We're up to 10 posts now, duck dodger is going strong.

And OceanDrive 2 should know that Green Sun can report him for flaming now.HALP! HALP! HAY MODRATORS SOMEONE CALLED ME A NO-NO NAME HALP

Best catch the beast of burden while it's young before it can steal sheep and then raze villages.

We're up to 10 posts now, duck dodger is going strong.Yeah, funny thing is how the CIA was blasted by the Bush administration pre-war for being too soft on intelligence against Iraq, then afterwards when their grand scheme of implementing the Wolfowitz Doctrine ended up resulting in blaming "faulty intelligence", suddenly the CIA was criticized for being way too forceful with their intelligence reports and Tenet conveniently was allowed to merely resign from his position.

And please, in the post-9/11 hysteria with the WHOMG TEROR IS LURKING EVERYWHERE frenzy, anyone speaking out against the way Bush was heading was labelled un-patriotic and un-American as it continues today, and it would've been literal political suicide.

And OceanDrive 2 should know that Green Sun can report him for flaming now.
Did you not read his message? He said, and I quote (Once again):
"I would not be surprised if she was an Idiot."
He did NOT say, as you are twisting to make seem true,
"She is probably a terrorist."
Please READ the message before you quote it.

Remarkably the Cold War comes back into mind after that statement. It's no different from then, man. As it has been stated before, Bush doesn't control every little freakin thing.

His research seems spot-on already. I note with interest that nobody on the Left has been able to refute anything he wrote in that post. :D
I must have missed the memo that today was opposite day for everything in his post has in fact been refuted.

She does have legitimiate points, Iraq doesn't have a real democracy, the intelligence world has dismissed the idea he had WMDs, the majority was lied to by the Bush administration in their push to war, he has used a guilt by association logical fallacy as a staple of his argument, and Bush does control policy of the US including much of the content of budgets and war strategy, both of which could have saved american lives. The one accurate point in the entirety of his latest post is that Sheehan already spoke to Bush.

Plus, of the 200 million people who didn't vote for Bush, 150 million didn't even bother voting. So that's 200 million who didn't vote for Kerry. How's them apples?


:headbang:

Maybe that is why our country is so fucked up to begin with! I am one of those 200 million that did NOT vote. Mostly because there weren't any good choices. I saw the last election more of a choice between the lesser of two evils and neither side was really anything good.

In that case, my nonvoting friend, perhaps you should have expressed your opinion more loudly and at least tried to make Americans not hate nonvoters.

I hope that came out right.

Indeed. America is becoming a hellhole and this is coming from a Bush-supporting independant American who would not choose to live in the larger hellhole known as everywhere else. Yep. One, but not the other.

To those who think I'm calling Sheehan a terrorists, take a few more English classes. You'd need them to figure out that I'm not saying she is. I'm just saying that if she turned out to be one, it would not shock me. Two different things. No flame-baiting. It is, but so is supporting Bush, being anti-Bush, or having any other opinion that differs for anyone, anywhere, anytime for any reason. You can say I'm not trolling on purpose, but merely stating an opinion, thereby risking offending someone, and, therefore, flamebaiting.

Her son's loss isn't Sheehan's sacrifice. She did not make him go. She could not make him not go. It was his decision. She could not legally stop him. Therefore, it was her son's sacrifice. My education in the fields of the English language appeared to have been altered slightly by my being here and reading many grammar errors. Damn you, people who can't spell. My overall education has been compromised. :eek: :mad:

In that case, my nonvoting friend, perhaps you should have expressed your opinion more loudly and at least tried to make Americans not hate nonvoters.

I hope that came out right.


And yet while living here in a West Coast state that the polls don't close in until everyone else has already chosen our president I ask yet again What is the point of voting when you know your vote will not count for anything?

And yet while living here in a West Coast state that the polls don't close in until everyone else has already chosen our president I ask yet again What is the point of voting when you know your vote will not count for anything?
That's the thing though is you have fallen into this trap that democracy is something that happens at election time. One can participate in democracy by doing more than voting. I agree, the two party system is far too limited but at the same time I recognize that trying to make that known to everyone else would be a far greater contribution to democracy than voting in and of itself.

I must have missed the memo that today was opposite day for everything in his post has in fact been refuted.

In which alternate universe did *that* ever happen? o_O

She does have legitimiate points, Iraq doesn't have a real democracy,...

More of a democracy than Canada has. Remember the ban on the Gomery hearings that affected both newspapers and blogs? :D

the intelligence world has dismissed the idea he had WMDs,

And of course good little liberals are obliged to believe *everything* that the CIA says, right? :p

the majority was lied to by the Bush administration in their push to war,...

Well, *of course*! Everything that a liberal doesn't want to hear has just *got* to be a lie, right? I mean you wouldn't want any nasty *evidence* spoiling your shiny obtained-from-your-own-bellybutton truths, right? :rolleyes:

...he has used a guilt by association logical fallacy as a staple of his argument,...


Yeah, everybody knows that villains *never* hang out together, right? :p If you goosestep the way that the I.S.O. tells you to without asking questions and just "follow orders" I'm sure you'll have a lot of moral purity at the end of the day. :rolleyes:

...and Bush does control policy of the US including much of the content of budgets and war strategy, both of which could have saved american lives.

Ah, so you are saying that Mr. Bush is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? You sure think more of him than I do. :p

I can't help but feel that Bush Derangement Syndrome isn't that different from worship of the man. A maltheistic religion but a religion all the same. :rolleyes:

The one accurate point in the entirety of his latest post is that Sheehan already spoke to Bush.

I'm glad you acknowledge that much reality. ;)

In which alternate universe did *that* ever happen? o_O The universe this thread exists in, whichever it happens to be.

More of a democracy than Canada has. Remember the ban on the Gomery hearings that affected both newspapers and blogs? :D
Canada doesn't get to choose thier own candidates nor have their votes counted? Very interesting.

And of course good little liberals are obliged to believe *everything* that the CIA says, right? :p When all other voices are stiffled do they have a choice?


Well, *of course*! Everything that a liberal doesn't want to hear has just *got* to be a lie, right? I mean you wouldn't want any nasty *evidence* spoiling your shiny obtained-from-your-own-bellybutton truths, right? :rolleyes: They had no evidence. For example, they knew the Aluminum tubes they claimed to be part of a Uranium enrichment program most certainly weren't. The Department of Energy came right out and said they were the wrong size, the wrong material, etc. and the Bush administration refused to get *evidence* get in the way of their little "crusade".

Yeah, everybody knows that villains *never* hang out together, right? :p If you goosestep the way that the I.S.O. tells you to without asking questions and just "follow orders" I'm sure you'll have a lot of moral purity at the end of the day. :rolleyes: So Moore and Sheehan are villains now. Who said anything about following orders? Oh right, just you.


Ah, so you are saying that Mr. Bush is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? You sure think more of him than I do. :p I think he is capable of understanding verbal speech if not written speech and that as the president he can set the party agenda. Would you like to argue with this assessment or would you like to admit claiming he would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent was a diversionary smokescreen you put up to avoid answering any of the points I made?

I can't help but feel that Bush Derangement Syndrome isn't that different from worship of the man. A maltheistic religion but a religion all the same. :rolleyes: Ah yes, because realizing Bush is a titanic fuckup even by politician standards requires worship of the man. You smell of Cognitive Dissonance.



I'm glad you acknowledge that much reality. ;)
I live to please.

I am finding it a futile effort to try to explain my point of view to people without them trying to make me look stupid, so I am now reduced to just pointing and laughing. **points and laughs** There appears to be no laugh icon. How can you have the finger icon, but not the laughing icon? **points and laughs at lack of laugh icon**

Am I the only one here who thinks she's now the "Spokesperson" for the Anti-War Movement only because the Media has portrayed her as such? And yes, this Media is liberally biased (not to Communists, but to people like me who're Centrists. It's not disgustingly liberally biased yet, but it does lean towards the left).

But that's another topic for another time.

And, I hope not the only one with these viewpoints, but I'm pretty sure that she just has a hard time grieving and needs to blame Bush for her kid signing up for a job with occupational hazards... very permanent occupational hazards.

And I still love how the rest of the Sheehan family has stated that Cindy is a loose cannon and her family does not support her selfish and attention-seeking actions in any way.

Did you not read his message? He said, and I quote (Once again):
"I would not be surprised if she was a terrorist."
He did NOT say, as you are twisting to make seem true,
"She is probably a terrorist."
Please READ the message before you quote it.
Three things:

1. You should take your own advice?:

Please READ the message before you quote it.

2. I stated:

Shame on you if you are going to call her a terrorist.

See that little word in there? Yeah the word "if". Read a little different to you now?

3. Don't misquote me. I did not say "She is probably a terrorist."

Other than that, carry on. :D

When You join the military you job is not to question your orders.... Your job is to obey them. plain and simple. Her son joined knowing what was instored for him if war was to happen. And it did. unfortunatly for him war claimed his life. We should idiolize our soldiers for thier jobs. it takes a true man to do what they are doing. And Protesting a war. ( not to say that you shouldn't you have the right) but when you protest. you divide, when you divide you weaken the base factor. how are our soldiers feeling when the war they are fighting is under constant attack for people who dont want it. it is demoralizing. And by her protesting I believe that she is degrading the memory of her son.... It is a true shame about what she is doing. Protesting is a great right but if the object of protest is already in full swing, stop protesting and finish it.

The universe this thread exists in, whichever it happens to be.

But you still can't point to a post where it ever happened. Funny how that works. :p

Canada doesn't get to choose thier own candidates nor have their votes counted? Very interesting.

But true all the same. Note for example that the Liberal Party kept their government in power quite illegally. :p

When all other voices are stiffled do they have a choice?

Oh those poor other voices! And what was this thread about again? Something about a group of clowns with no day job who have made a career out of demonizing Mr. Bush for the past 5 years? Yeah, I'm sure they'd be able to do that if all other voices had been stiffled. :p


They had no evidence. For example, they knew the Aluminum tubes they claimed to be part of a Uranium enrichment program most certainly weren't. The Department of Energy came right out and said they were the wrong size, the wrong material, etc. and the Bush administration refused to get *evidence* get in the way of their little "crusade".

You mean evidence like this? o_O

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005329.php



So Moore and Sheehan are villains now.

Moore always was. Casey Sheehan is a war hero. The only reason we know about his mom is because of him. I'm sure the "anti war" movement will use her as a tool for as long as they consider her useful before discarding her and leaving her with nothing. That's the kind of people they are.

Who said anything about following orders? Oh right, just you.

Sgt. Schulz of Hogan's Heroes was also good at bellowing "I know nothing!" :p

I think he is capable of understanding verbal speech if not written speech and that as the president he can set the party agenda.

And *everybody* knows that the GOP controls *all* random events, right? :p

Would you like to argue with this assessment or would you like to admit claiming he would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent was a diversionary smokescreen you put up to avoid answering any of the points I made?

Oh, I don't disagree that he's as bright as you say and more. Indeed I'm rather proud of you for finally progressing beyond the recycled "Bonzo" images that most poor liberals never outgrew. But is it my fault you're uncomfortable with noticing what absolute ottaku on the subject of Mr. Bush the Left has become? :D

Ah yes, because realizing Bush is a titanic fuckup even by politician standards requires worship of the man. You smell of Cognitive Dissonance.

*I* am not the poor sod who talks of him setting party agendas on one hand and calling him a "titantic fuckup even by politician standards" on the other without so much as noticing the internal contradiction between those 2 statements. ^o^

BTW, You realize of course that having opposed Mr. Bush for 5 years without results means that you guys are clearly his inferiors in political matters. If he is indeed a titantic fuckup then what does that make you guys? :D

BTW, You realize of course that having opposed Mr. Bush for 5 years without results means that you guys are clearly his inferiors in political matters. If he is indeed a titantic fuckup then what does that make you guys?

Burned.... :)

But you still can't point to a post where it ever happened. Funny how that works. :p
Indeed. You have demonstrated the reading comprehension skills of a sedated gerbil. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9531132&postcount=65


But true all the same. Note for example that the Liberal Party kept their government in power quite illegally. :p Right, you keep on believing that Canada has less democracy than Iraq.


Oh those poor other voices! And what was this thread about again? Something about a group of clowns with no day job who have made a career out of demonizing Mr. Bush for the past 5 years? Yeah, I'm sure they'd be able to do that if all other voices had been stiffled. :p What in the blue hell does that have to do with intelligence on WMDs? Oh, right, nothing. This is just another duh-version of yours.



You mean evidence like this? o_O

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005329.php One, the evidence linking Iraq to AQ was dismissed and two the link you posted had to do with connections between IRAN and AQ. Evidence like what exactly?


Moore always was. Casey Sheehan is a war hero. The only reason we know about his mom is because of him. I'm sure the "anti war" movement will use her as a tool for as long as they consider her useful before discarding her and leaving her with nothing. That's the kind of people they are. How very ad hom of you.


Sgt. Schulz of Hogan's Heroes was also good at bellowing "I know nothing!" :p
And Peter Griffin from Family Guy was very good at saying "I'm retarded." Your point is?, Oh wait, let me guess, a duh-version.


And *everybody* knows that the GOP controls *all* random events, right? :p
Nobody was talking about random events. Another duh-version from you.


Oh, I don't disagree that he's as bright as you say and more. Indeed I'm rather proud of you for finally progressing beyond the recycled "Bonzo" images that most poor liberals never outgrew. But is it my fault you're uncomfortable with noticing what absolute ottaku on the subject of Mr. Bush the Left has become? :D In order to answer your question I would have to accept your bogus premise.



*I* am not the poor sod who talks of him setting party agendas on one hand and calling him a "titantic fuckup even by politician standards" on the other without so much as noticing the internal contradiction between those 2 statements. ^o^ There is no contradiction. The mere fact he is liked well enough to get elected says nothing of the fact that he is utterly incompetent as president. You seem to be under some delusion that popularity somehow equates to ability.

BTW, You realize of course that having opposed Mr. Bush for 5 years without results means that you guys are clearly his inferiors in political matters. If he is indeed a titantic fuckup then what does that make you guys? :D
Who is us guys? You seem to think I am a democrat. You are quite wrong.

Mind if I join in?

But true all the same. Note for example that the Liberal Party kept their government in power quite illegally. :p
Simply not true. :eek:

Oh those poor other voices! And what was this thread about again? Something about a group of clowns with no day job who have made a career out of demonizing Mr. Bush for the past 5 years? Yeah, I'm sure they'd be able to do that if all other voices had been stiffled. :p
What is wrong with them having a night job? You tend to reach for sensationalism by suggesting that these people are "clowns", that they don't have a "day job", and that they made a "career" out of "demonizing" Bush. Just because you don't agree with their right to "free speech"?

You mean evidence like this? o_O

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005329.php
And the Captain's Table is a credible news source? Especially since it boasts this:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/awardlogo.jpg

How about a pound of truth? (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf)

Numerous experts believed the tubes were for conventional rockets rather than a nuclear development program.In his February 5, 2004, speech, Mr. Tenet explained that disagreement over the purpose of the aluminum tubes was “a debate laid out extensively in the estimate and one that experts still argue over.”30

The agency with the most technical expertise in this area, the Department of Energy, believed that the tubes likely were not part of a nuclear enrichment
program, stating in the NIE that “the tubes probably are not part of the
program.”31 The International Atomic Energy Agency agreed, concluding:
“There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment.”32

Moore always was. Casey Sheehan is a war hero. The only reason we know about his mom is because of him. I'm sure the "anti war" movement will use her as a tool for as long as they consider her useful before discarding her and leaving her with nothing. That's the kind of people they are.
Can you give some examples to support your claim?

Sgt. Schulz of Hogan's Heroes was also good at bellowing "I know nothing!" :p
You can readily identify with Sgt. Schulz? :rolleyes:

BTW, You realize of course that having opposed Mr. Bush for 5 years without results means that you guys are clearly his inferiors in political matters. If he is indeed a titantic fuckup then what does that make you guys? :D
Since Captain Bush will be going down with the ship, that would make the other "guys"......"survivors". :D

Yeah, funny thing is how the CIA was blasted by the Bush administration pre-war for being too soft on intelligence against Iraq, then afterwards when their grand scheme of implementing the Wolfowitz Doctrine ended up resulting in blaming "faulty intelligence", suddenly the CIA was criticized for being way too forceful with their intelligence reports and Tenet conveniently was allowed to merely resign from his position.

And please, in the post-9/11 hysteria with the WHOMG TEROR IS LURKING EVERYWHERE frenzy, anyone speaking out against the way Bush was heading was labelled un-patriotic and un-American as it continues today, and it would've been literal political suicide.

Ahh, so Clinton and Kerry agreed Sadam had WMD because it would have been political suicide to do otherwise? ridiculous.

*SNIP* the intelligence world has dismissed the idea he had WMDs, the majority was lied to by the Bush administration in their push to war,

At the time, the intelligence world believed he had WMD's and Bush was not lying, he was repeating the info. he believed and had been given - you have to know it is false for it to be a lie. If Bush was lying about WMD's deliberately, so were Clinton and Kerry - surely you're not claiming they were liars as well (or are you taking the inane position that they had to go along with Bush since to call Bush on the lie would have been political suicide).

Okay, great master of legitimate points, I'll once-over the points you made up to this statement.



Do you actually think that would help? Do you actually think old Cindy would go, "Oh, that's why?" and stop hating Bush and stop protesting the war? No. So what's the point, other than to waste his time on one more pissed off protestor?



Parents don't send their children to war. What a legitimate comment.



Wrong, the government is being built as a democracy, and will be one very shortly.



God forbid a president try to enact policies that he wants to enact.



Questions that have been asked many times before, have been answered many times before, and the answers to which will not affect her views of or actions against the war effort.



No, but a thousand other people have.



"Arrr, damn that liar, the government's out to get us, rabble rabble rabble."

Sorry, couldn't resist. That, too, was a very legitimate and well-thought-out point.



"Rarrr, that fucker, how dare he? Rabble rabble rabble."

*clears throat*

And here I thought the government was in place, the new constitution was nearing completion, and plans have been expressed to have troops out before the end of Bush's term. But who am I?



I'm sorry, Lyric. Much more attention I should have paid to your incredibly legitimate points, to your impressive command of the English language, and to your amazing skills in the art of debate that I so obviously lack. I was wrong to take a cheap shot for a few laughs instead of arguing a topic I've argued a hundred times before, because the Lord knows I'm supposed to answer every single rant on why Bush is out to get us. My sincerest apologies.


You didn't answer shit...except sarcastically, of course.

1. Why should Bush "waste his time" on one more pissed-off protestor? Let me turn that around...why should Bush "WASTE AMERICA'S TIME" on one more fawning corporate donor at one of his parties at the ranch in Crawford?

2. No but this parent (Bush) sends OTHER parent's children to war. If it's good enough for OTHER PARENT'S CHILDREN, then why not his own children? I mean, if it's SUCH a "noble cause..."

3. No, it won't. The Kurds and Shiites are trying to run roughshod over the Sunnis, and give them absolutely nothing. And so the Sunnis will stop at nothing to prevent them from getting anywhere, and it appears the sunnis have just enough numbers to do it, too. and if they don't expect the insurgency to intensify. Ah, but wait...maybe there IS an American-style "democracy" flourishing over there in Iraq...since the majority seems all too willing to run roughshod over the rights and concerns of the minority...in fact, hell, now that I think about it, Iraq LOOKS JUST LIKE AMERICA!!

4. God forbid a President ever back the fuck off when he realizes most of the people do not want him to enact a particular policy. God forbid a President not trying to ram his way through opposition like a bull in a china shop, rather than actually LISTEN to people who oppose his policies, and maybe try a little compromise! "Uniter not a diveider" my fucking ass!! "Compassionate Conservative" my fucking ass!

5. Maybe she wants it straight from the horse's mouth, and wants to finally make him face up to, and take accountability for his own actions, PERSONALLY...in the hopes that maybe it will make him THINK before he acts, in the future. Yeah, it's too late for Casey, but it ain't too late for a whole lot of other mother's sons! Not that you or Bush would give a shit about that, since your own skin is safe!! If you support Bush and this war so much, then WHY THE FUCK aren't YOU over there, fighting?!?!?

6. 1 thousnad people have made excuses, evasions, and told lies and half-truths for him, you mean. again, perhaps Cindy wants THE TRUTH...and she wants the straight dope right from the horse's mouth, maybe she wants to FORCE him into taking accountability, since no one else will!

7. downing Street Memo mean nothing to you? fine. Then what about the founding papers on PNAC, which call for Iraq invasion....long before W was even (s)elected...long before 9/11....how 'bout the part in the PNAC documents that say something to the effect of them "needing another event on the scale of Pearl Harbor" to carrry out thier plans? You just ignore anything that might make the Republicans look bad, don't you? Why can't you face the fact that America has undergone a bloodless coup, our government has effectively been overthrown, and power seized by a dictator?

Mark my words, Bush won't go when his time is up. He will find a way to saty. We will have some terror attack or something, and he will declare martial law, declare himself President-for-life, and cancel elections. Mark my words, you heard it here first. I don't put it past the evil motherfucker.

8. I won't even respond to the last part of your sarcastic bullshit, because it is entirely flamebait, and intended to piss me off. You have not LEGITIMATELY addressed even one single point I brought up except to scoff at them all, but you have provided no sourcing, and no backup...for why you so readily dismiss my points out of hand. You just keep going right on believing the government propaganda that FOX News and the Corporate Media will give you. One day, hopefully, you will wake up...and on that day, I'll still be here, waiting for my apology when you finally come to realize I was right about the evil motherfucker Bush.

She's becoming an extreme liberal. I wouldn't be surprised if she even tried to kill Bush if he ever meets with her again.

Let me get this straight. Because she disagrees with him, and dislikes him...and says so, publicly...you are accusing this woman of being a potential MURDERER?? Well, shit, then you better accuse ME, too...because I disagree with Bush, I dislike him, and I've said so publicly.


I think you need to take back that statement, it could be considered slander and defamation of character. You better have something better than "she's an extreme liberal and hates my Bushie-boy" before you go accusing someone of being a potential murderess!! I'm sure as shit glad you are not on any police force anywhere in the world.

if sheehan just wanted an explaination for why we went to war that would be one thing

but she wants us to drop everything and run - and that is simply not acceptable

W should not meet with her unless she is elected to congress

Now THERE'S an idea!! And since Cindy comes from California, I bet there's a decent chance she COULD get elected. then that asshole Dubya would have no fucking choice but to take it from Cindy, every fucking day, too!

Go, CINDY!!!! RUN FOR OFFICE!!!!

Hmmm, did Kerry and Clinton know the info. was false and misleading as well? They echoed and repeated it, are they liars too?

Just a question (that extreme liberals duck, dodge and refuse to answer).

No, Kerry and Clinton did NOT know it was false and misleading. they were fed the same bullshit, by Bush...that the rest of us were fed. Like a good deal of the American public, Kerry and Clinton bought it without question.

Nice straw man.

And please, in the post-9/11 hysteria with the WHOMG TEROR IS LURKING EVERYWHERE frenzy, anyone speaking out against the way Bush was heading was labelled un-patriotic and un-American as it continues today, and it would've been literal political suicide.

No joke! You know, shortly after 9/11, yours truly was detained and questioned by the Secret Service, because someone reported me for making an intemperate remark about Bush?

True fact. When I heard the Secret Service wanted to talk to me, I already guessed what it was about, AND who turned me in (a whacko Bush supporter who KNEW damn well I was no threat, but who just wanted to cause me trouble for MY political beliefs) and so I went and voluntarily turned myself in.

I endured about an hour a questioning...I WILL, in ther credit, say that the SS men were very polite and professional...and then, when they recognized I was no threat, and they had better things to do than to worry about someone who spoke their mind and made an intemperate remark about Bush, I was let go. I wasn't even put on any sort of "no-fly list" or anything like it. The matter was dropped. Though I'm sure it's still on file somewhere.

but, it goes to show you the extent to which our political enemies will go, just to create trouble for people who have different political views than they do.

When You join the military you job is not to question your orders.... Your job is to obey them. plain and simple. Her son joined knowing what was instored for him if war was to happen. And it did. unfortunatly for him war claimed his life. We should idiolize our soldiers for thier jobs. it takes a true man to do what they are doing. And Protesting a war. ( not to say that you shouldn't you have the right) but when you protest. you divide, when you divide you weaken the base factor. how are our soldiers feeling when the war they are fighting is under constant attack for people who dont want it. it is demoralizing. And by her protesting I believe that she is degrading the memory of her son.... It is a true shame about what she is doing. Protesting is a great right but if the object of protest is already in full swing, stop protesting and finish it.

OK, I get it now. We Democrats and liberals are supposed to "sit down and shut up" when a war is supported by a Republican President, and based on lies. But, when the Republicans went after Clinton over Kosovo, they WEREN'T aiding our enemies, and they weren't "demoralizing our troops."

I understand now!

That's why Bush, as then-Governor of Texas...was able to criticize Clinton over not having an exit strategy for Kosovo...and yet, we are wrong now, when we try to hold Bush to the same standards he set for Clinton, and demand from BUSH an exit strategy for Iraq!

I get it now!!

Damn, that just cleared it all up!

No, Kerry and Clinton did NOT know it was false and misleading. they were fed the same bullshit, by Bush...that the rest of us were fed. Like a good deal of the American public, Kerry and Clinton bought it without question.

Nice straw man.

Oooohhh, so Bush made Clinton and Kerry go along with him! They believed Bush like good little Democrats do. Ha-Ha, that'll be the day. If Bush was a liar about WMD's, so were they. They had access to the same information - Clinton said WMD's existed long before Bush became president and Kerry was of the same mind. I love the way libs. try to say it was Bush's fault that they made the same claims Bush did, but that Bush was lying and they weren't when the said the same thing.

Liberalism, it's a mental disorder characterized by "Doublethink" the ability to hold two completely contradictory opinions and not be concerned with or able to recognize the contradiction.

If you are too lazy to look anything up, no wonder you dont how corrupt the man is. Maybe you should read about his family's business dealings with the Saudi's. How about his Vice President's connections to the corporation Halliburton who has most of the contracts in Iraq? Do a little reading.

Exactly, that was his family. You proved yourself once again wrong. That's like saying since your brother's a murder your also a murder.

Halliburton got the contracts because they outbet the other companies. I would like to see you show me a link saying they got the contract even though they were outbet.

Why don't you do a little reading?

BTW, You realize of course that having opposed Mr. Bush for 5 years without results means that you guys are clearly his inferiors in political matters. If he is indeed a titantic fuckup then what does that make you guys? :D

without his HANDLERS...and without a compliant Corporate Media...Bush would have imploded a long time ago, and we all know it. It just means he has his ASS well covered, that's all. It means HE is allowed to get away with shit that no DEMOCRAT would ever be allowed to get away with.

Oooohhh, so Bush made Clinton and Kerry go along with him! They believed Bush like good little Democrats do. Ha-Ha, that'll be the day. If Bush was a liar about WMD's, so were they. They had access to the same information -

YES!! THE SAME DOCTORED IONFORMATION!!

The only difference is BUSH KNEW IT WAS DOCTORED. Clinton and Kerry DIDN'T.

If you whisper in my ear, and tell me a lie....and then I pass that lie on to others, believing I'm telling the truth....that does not make me a liar. It means I was, in good faith, passing on bad information.

Exactly, that was his family. You proved yourself once again wrong. That's like saying since your brother's a murder your also a murder.

Halliburton got the contracts because they outbet the other companies. I would like to see you show me a link saying they got the contract even though they were outbet.

Why don't you do a little reading?

They were not "outbet" or, actually OUTBID...because in the case of the Halliburton contracts THERE WAS NO FUCKING BID!!

Why don't you do a little reading?

I would not be surprised if Green-Sun was an idiot.

I'm not suprised that you've been reported, because you've made a few comments such as this before, yet you haven't learned a thing. You need to knock off the insults. Now.

Lyric: You need to calm down as well. I suggest that you quit capitalizing specific words in your replies, because it's making you look like you have a bad temper.

I have been looking into the anti-war protests that Cindy Sheehan started. I believe that she has the total right to protest. Now I have never agreed with Bush on the Iraqi war. I think it was pointless to Invade Iraq. We had proven that there were no WMD's. Yet Bush continues to use that excuse as a reason for the war. He won't talk to Cindy? Why not? What does our president have to hide? I believe that our First President George Washington would have talked with people about his decisions. This country was founded in the ideals that the leader, the person who represents the whole nation, would actually make decisions that represented what the nation wanted. Do you think that this nation would be a great as it is today is every politician was as anti-social as Bush? Bush says that Cindy is giving support to the enemy and demoralizing the nation. WHAT? Not once did Cindy say that she supported the enemy. And demoralizing the nation? Have you seen Bush's approval rating lately? It is practically non-existint like his brain. Does he even have the Cojones to talk to protesters? His mid has one track. he won't even listen to anything he doesn't agree with. Now that his vacation is over. He can get back to running the country, which I say he doesn't do a good job of but what the heck. Maybe he will actually do something to show he is worth the respect of the Nation. Maybe he can actually run the nation the right way instead of sticking his head up his @$$. One of these days Bush will do something to give us a chance to impeach him. That day can't come soon enough.

What are your opinions?
President Bush has already met once with the strange Ms. Sheehan. That's more than 99% of all citizens of the US get. Enough said about that.

Now, I agree that Ms. Sheehan should be allowed to protest. Protest anything and everything you like; protest the use of laundry detergents and soap, protest the wanton killing of poisonous insects, protest continental drift and global warming. I couldn't care less.

But I have the right to call Ms. Sheehan what she is: a sorry, lying, worthless bitch of a disrespectful mother.

Ahh, so Clinton and Kerry agreed Sadam had WMD because it would have been political suicide to do otherwise? ridiculous.
It's as good an explanation as anything you could come up with. I've got another--they trusted Bush and assumed that he had greater access to information than they had, which is an accurate assumption, so they gave him the benefit of the doubt. They were lied to, in short.

Personally, I think they went along because they felt that post 9/11, a Democrat couldn't be seen as a pussy, no matter how stupid or ill-planned the action was. The decision smacks of political opportunism to me. But regardless of why they voted as they did, the fact is that this war, the causalties, the Islamic republic that looks to come out of it, and every terrorist attack performed by someone who learned his or her trade in Iraq as a result of this war is the responsibility of George W. Bush and his administration. It's pretty simple--if they don't lie about the situation, there's no war, and because of that, no matter how many Democrats voted with him, Bush owns this war and every scintilla of the aftermath.

President Bush has already met once with the strange Ms. Sheehan. That's more than 99% of all citizens of the US get. Enough said about that.

Now, I agree that Ms. Sheehan should be allowed to protest. Protest anything and everything you like; protest the use of laundry detergents and soap, protest the wanton killing of poisonous insects, protest continental drift and global warming. I couldn't care less.

But I have the right to call Ms. Sheehan what she is: a sorry, lying, worthless bitch of a disrespectful mother.
You know, I'm tempted to send Cindy Sheehan an email telling her to become a member of this forum just so you'd have to stop flaming her.

Bush is undoubtedly the most corrupt president this nation has ever seen unless you count his father (can you say "in the Saudi's pocket"). The man was a middling student, a partying, woman chasing f*&%-up with DUI's until he went straight to being the governor of Texas with little or no political experience. He sticks his foot in his mouth on a regular basis (he must love the taste of shoe leather) and had the gall to say of Clinton during Kosovo that Clinton (who was a Rhodes Scholar) needed to explain his "exit strategy". Bush won't talk to anyone about his "exit strategy" or anything else. Remember he's the one who said it was all over (um, remind me how many dead soldiers ago that was).

Forgot to mention how the BUSH family is related to: Oil, Weapons, and how they are getting RICH on this war.

:mp5: War is GOOD for Business!!! :mp5:

They were not "outbet" or, actually OUTBID...because in the case of the Halliburton contracts THERE WAS NO FUCKING BID!!

Why don't you do a little reading?

There was a bidding for that. It was Halliburton, some US companies, and then a couple of companies from other coalition members. It also was the controversy because companies from nation's that didn't help in Iraq wanted some profit from Iraq, but the US rejected them.

Why don't you do some reading?

There was a bidding for that. It was Halliburton, some US companies, and then a couple of companies from other coalition members. It also was the controversy because companies from nation's that didn't help in Iraq wanted some profit from Iraq, but the US rejected them.

Why don't you do some reading?
It's possible that you two are talking about different things--how about both of you cite some sources to back your points up. Space Union--I can tell you this much--Halliburton did receive some no-bid contracts (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml) to do the rebuilding in Iraq. If you can prove that they also won some competitively bid contracts, then we'll know if you two were talking about different things.

How are they getting money from burning oil fields, dead soldiers, and civilians in teh middle of it all? I honestly don't see how this war profits the Bush family.

How are they getting money from burning oil fields, dead soldiers, and civilians in teh middle of it all? I honestly don't see how this war profits the Bush family.
Most significantly, Poppy's ties with both the Sauds and the Carlyle group (a defense company) are reaping significant financial benefits for the extended family right now.

I'm not saying Dubya went to war for personal or family financial gain--I think there are plenty of other bad reasons, not the least of which is the need for future secure supplies of oil--but his family is likely to benefit financially from this.

EDIT: I need to add that the Bush family is far from the only political family likely to benefit financially from this war--I can't point to others because I don't know them, but it wouldn't surprise me if old political families from both sides of the aisle made out like bandits from this thing.

Sounds illegal somehow.

I'm not saying Dubya went to war for personal or family financial gain

Most significantly, Poppy's ties with both the Sauds and the Carlyle group (a defense company) are reaping significant financial benefits for the extended family right now.

which one is it?

I'm not suprised that you've been reported, because you've made a few comments such as this before, yet you haven't learned a thing. You need to knock off the insults. Now.

Lyric: You need to calm down as well. I suggest that you quit capitalizing specific words in your replies, because it's making you look like you have a bad temper.

I DO have a bad temper, when I say things known to be fact 20 plus times and the Bushbots continue to reject it out of hand!

President Bush has already met once with the strange Ms. Sheehan. That's more than 99% of all citizens of the US get. Enough said about that.

Now, I agree that Ms. Sheehan should be allowed to protest. Protest anything and everything you like; protest the use of laundry detergents and soap, protest the wanton killing of poisonous insects, protest continental drift and global warming. I couldn't care less.

But I have the right to call Ms. Sheehan what she is: a sorry, lying, worthless bitch of a disrespectful mother.

Ah, but for the Grace of God it could've been YOU who lost a child....

which one is it?
There's no contradiction--just because they happen to benefit financially doesn't mean that was the primary or even a secondary motivation for the decision to go to war. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Let me get some monkies off my back:
1. I dislike Sheehan. It's one thing to protest the war. It's another thing to call Bush a killer all because your son VOLUNTARILY joined the military and was killed on a mission after he was told that HE COULD STAY BEHIND.

2. Sheehan went from protesting to smearing. It's not the what some of you don't get. It's the how, and possibly why.

3. I dislike it when people say I worship Bush when I agree with him on some things. Key word is some. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I'm independant from political parties. I don't let a group of assholes tell me how to think. I am the one controlling how I think, unlike many of you hardcores.

Let me get some monkies off my back:
1. I dislike Sheehan. It's one thing to protest the war. It's another thing to call Bush a killer all because your son VOLUNTARILY joined the military and was killed on a mission after he was told that HE COULD STAY BEHIND.

2. Sheehan went from protesting to smearing. It's not the what some of you don't get. It's the how, and possibly why.

3. I dislike it when people say I worship Bush when I agree with him on some things. Key word is some. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I'm independant from political parties. I don't let a group of assholes tell me how to think. I am the one controlling how I think, unlike many of you hardcores.
Wow, nothing like insulting both liberals and conservatives. You don't control anything about how you think. The media does that. Don't believe me? Where do you get all your information? That's right, the media. For you to control all your thoughts, you would have to look through every piece of biased information and try to dig through and find pure facts, and in today's world that is virtually impossible. So either you know nothing about what's going on, or you're not completely thinking for yourself. You may think you know all the facts, but you don't. It's a matter of maturity and liberalism to understand that and admit that.

I dislike it when people hate both liberals and conservatives and claim to be superior to everyone else.

And you know what I hate? People who try to discredit other debaters when they can't think of a better way to debate against them.

You may think you know all the facts, but you don't. It's a matter of maturity and liberalism to understand that and admit that.

What? What does this mean?

Also, there are more alternative sources of information for this war than ever. I would say that it is rare that anyone on this site recieves all of their info on the war from the media.

You know there is a reason Bush isn't talking to Sheehan. Its just so he can get some press for himself. He just wants to rally his forces to show that he is all powerful.

Hell, if he wanted to can all this trouble he should have just talked to her.

OR

He doesn't want to make it so that ANYONE who has a problem will come and talk to him. I mean, Heaven forbid that the President of The United States of America actually takes time out to TALK to the people. :headbang:

What? What does this mean?

Also, there are more alternative sources of information for this war than ever. I would say that it is rare that anyone on this site recieves all of their info on the war from the media.
Liberalism meaning a certain degree of openmindedness... you know, the real definition of "liberal."

And those alternative sources are heavily biased. My point is, that all stories we hear are biased in one way or another. Not many people do research to find facts and numbers, they just quote whatever they heard on the media, which today, is far from credible in many cases.

At the time, the intelligence world believed he had WMD's and Bush was not lying, he was repeating the info. he believed and had been given - you have to know it is false for it to be a lie. If Bush was lying about WMD's deliberately, so were Clinton and Kerry - surely you're not claiming they were liars as well (or are you taking the inane position that they had to go along with Bush since to call Bush on the lie would have been political suicide).
Simply (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html) wrong. (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html)

Oooohhh, so Bush made Clinton and Kerry go along with him! They believed Bush like good little Democrats do. Ha-Ha, that'll be the day. If Bush was a liar about WMD's, so were they. They had access to the same information - Clinton said WMD's existed long before Bush became president and Kerry was of the same mind. I love the way libs. try to say it was Bush's fault that they made the same claims Bush did, but that Bush was lying and they weren't when the said the same thing.

Liberalism, it's a mental disorder characterized by "Doublethink" the ability to hold two completely contradictory opinions and not be concerned with or able to recognize the contradiction.
Meanwhile conservatives use deception, and deceit as their main tools to accomplish their political goals?

Kerry campaign says Bush misled US on Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/11/kerry_campaign_says_bush_misled_us_on_iraq?pg=full)

Kerry said Bush had personally misled him into casting his vote to support the war by indicating that the administration would exhaust diplomatic options before using force. In fact, Kerry said several Middle Eastern leaders, including Saudis, had told him the Bush administration was committed to war more than a year before the actual invasion. But he set aside his concerns after receiving assurances from President Bush.

Speaking of deception.deceit, try this on for size:

IRAQ ON THE RECORD

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf)

You didn't answer shit...except sarcastically, of course.

1. Why should Bush "waste his time" on one more pissed-off protestor? Let me turn that around...why should Bush "WASTE AMERICA'S TIME" on one more fawning corporate donor at one of his parties at the ranch in Crawford?

Because they benefit him... was that your actual point?

2. No but this parent (Bush) sends OTHER parent's children to war. If it's good enough for OTHER PARENT'S CHILDREN, then why not his own children? I mean, if it's SUCH a "noble cause..."

No, he doesn't. He declares war. The children joined the army on their own, and not expecting the possibility of war is their own fault. Cindy's son even joined after the war started. He knew he was going to be fighting.

3. No, it won't. The Kurds and Shiites are trying to run roughshod over the Sunnis, and give them absolutely nothing. And so the Sunnis will stop at nothing to prevent them from getting anywhere, and it appears the sunnis have just enough numbers to do it, too. and if they don't expect the insurgency to intensify. Ah, but wait...maybe there IS an American-style "democracy" flourishing over there in Iraq...since the majority seems all too willing to run roughshod over the rights and concerns of the minority...in fact, hell, now that I think about it, Iraq LOOKS JUST LIKE AMERICA!!

Wow. Iraq looks about as much like America as the Iraqi War looks like Vietnam. Just because they're both democracies (or becoming such) doesn't make them the same.

4. God forbid a President ever back the fuck off when he realizes most of the people do not want him to enact a particular policy. God forbid a President not trying to ram his way through opposition like a bull in a china shop, rather than actually LISTEN to people who oppose his policies, and maybe try a little compromise! "Uniter not a diveider" my fucking ass!! "Compassionate Conservative" my fucking ass!

Just wrong. People did want him to enact said policy when he did it.

5. Maybe she wants it straight from the horse's mouth, and wants to finally make him face up to, and take accountability for his own actions, PERSONALLY...in the hopes that maybe it will make him THINK before he acts, in the future. Yeah, it's too late for Casey, but it ain't too late for a whole lot of other mother's sons! Not that you or Bush would give a shit about that, since your own skin is safe!! If you support Bush and this war so much, then WHY THE FUCK aren't YOU over there, fighting?!?!?

Because I don't want to be? Just because you support a war doesn't mean you have to want to go fight in it. The people fighting over in Iraq signed up for the military of their own free will. I believe what they're doing in Iraq is good for Iraq, good for America, and bad for terrorist organizations that were being fed by Saddam. Just because someone supports the legalization of pot doesn't mean they have to smoke it. Just because someone believes recycling to be a good thing doesn't mean they have to recycle. Just because someone thinks jumping out of airplanes is cool doesn't mean they need to do it.

6. 1 thousnad people have made excuses, evasions, and told lies and half-truths for him, you mean. again, perhaps Cindy wants THE TRUTH...and she wants the straight dope right from the horse's mouth, maybe she wants to FORCE him into taking accountability, since no one else will!

Except that the truth has been told, so she's looking for information that's already available.

7. downing Street Memo mean nothing to you? fine. Then what about the founding papers on PNAC, which call for Iraq invasion....long before W was even (s)elected...long before 9/11....how 'bout the part in the PNAC documents that say something to the effect of them "needing another event on the scale of Pearl Harbor" to carrry out thier plans? You just ignore anything that might make the Republicans look bad, don't you? Why can't you face the fact that America has undergone a bloodless coup, our government has effectively been overthrown, and power seized by a dictator?

Yes, Lyric, I'm the one spewing radical, baseless partisan politics here, where as you are being clear and reasonable in your points. I'm not going to bother arguing against foolhardy government conspiracy theories for the fiftieth time.

Mark my words, Bush won't go when his time is up. He will find a way to saty. We will have some terror attack or something, and he will declare martial law, declare himself President-for-life, and cancel elections. Mark my words, you heard it here first. I don't put it past the evil motherfucker.

I'll take that bet. Make it a couple million?

8. I won't even respond to the last part of your sarcastic bullshit, because it is entirely flamebait, and intended to piss me off. You have not LEGITIMATELY addressed even one single point I brought up except to scoff at them all, but you have provided no sourcing, and no backup...for why you so readily dismiss my points out of hand. You just keep going right on believing the government propaganda that FOX News and the Corporate Media will give you. One day, hopefully, you will wake up...and on that day, I'll still be here, waiting for my apology when you finally come to realize I was right about the evil motherfucker Bush.

Trust me, your rant is flamebaiting me much more effectively than anything I have said. I have replied to said rant in this manner because so much of said rant is baseless and moronic that it is not worth my time, as you are beyond help, your opinions will obviously not change, and I've had this debate with numerous people before who are much more pleasant and reasonable than you.

PS: Everything statement in the last paragraph that is in red is a reason that you are not worth replying to in great length.

Liberalism, it's a mental disorder characterized by "Doublethink" the ability to hold two completely contradictory opinions and not be concerned with or able to recognize the contradiction.

Do you feel uncomfortable when faced with new facts? Is it difficult adjusting to changes in knowledge? If so, you may have a condition known as Cognitive Dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonace is characterised by extreme discomfort or inability to mentally process any information which does not conform to their pre-existing world view.

Often when suffering from this disorder, any new information or facts that come along must be ignored or twisted to fit with the existing facts or the cognitive dissonance patient becomes irritable, hostile, and enters denial. They lash out at the source of the new information that threatens their world view, calling them left wing nutjobs, doublethinkers, communists, socialists, Bush haters, etc. Frequently the Patient will engage in projection, asserting the mental disorder is in fact on the part of their opponent.

Additional symptoms of Cognitive Dissonance include:
* The ability to Parrot Republican talking points long after they have been refuted.
* Refusal to read any websites other than NewsMax, Fox News, and Free Republic.
* Ignoring posts that refuted their points and later claiming nobody was willing to debate them.
* Blaming any and all information contrary to their existing world view on the vast liberal media conspiracy.
* Blames the lack of evidence of a Liberal Media bias on the vast Liberal Conspiracy.
* Blaming Clinton for everything that goes wrong under a republican.
* Voting for Bush.

Don't worry, there is help. Contact your Doctor and ask for a dose of reality. A dose of reallity has been demosntrated in lab studies to alleviatte the symptoms of Cognitive Dissonance and can help you get you life back on track. A dose of reallity is not for everyone, side effects may include clarity, awareness, secular government, gay rights, and cancelation of subscription to Free Republic. Contact your Doctor and see if a dose of reality is right for you.

To sum up Mauiwowee's brilliant initial points, all people with liberal views or people that do not like Bush but do like Clinton are Democrats, and all Democrats are afflicted with a disorder that makes them unreasonable.

To sum up Xhadam's brilliant counterpoint, all people with conservative views or people that do not like Clinton but do like Bush are Republicans, and all Republicans are afflicted with a disorder that makes them unreasonable.

Brilliant words of wisdom from brilliant debaters.

To sum up Mauiwowee's brilliant initial points, all people with liberal views or people that do not like Bush but do like Clinton are Democrats, and all Democrats are afflicted with a disorder that makes them unreasonable.

To sum up Xhadam's brilliant counterpoint, all people with conservative views or people that do not like Clinton but do like Bush are Republicans, and all Republicans are afflicted with a disorder that makes them unreasonable.

Brilliant words of wisdom from brilliant debaters.

And to sum up your post. "WAAAH!!! I don't want to play any more because Lyric is kicking my ass!!!"

I also like how you managed to completely miss the content of my post beneath the heavy sarcasm. For example, I would be interested to know where I said all conservatives were anything. Please point that out to me. Otherwise, well done.

And to sum up your post. "WAAAH!!! I don't want to play any more because Lyric is kicking my ass!!!"

Definitely. What with Lyric's amazing skills coupled with his calm, collected approach and his ability to make points that are so obviously devoid of premature partisan bias and completely based on reason, I never really stood a chance.

I also like how you managed to completely miss the content of my post beneath the heavy sarcasm. Well done.
Yes, I understood the sarcasm in your post, but there was also sarcasm in Mauiwowee's post. However, you replied to it, making it quite apparent that you honestly believe a good portion of what you wrote sarcastically, even if to a lesser extent.

Definitely. What with Lyric's amazing skills coupled with his calm, collected approach and his ability to make points that are so obviously devoid of premature partisan bias and completely based on reason, I never really stood a chance.


Yes, I understood the sarcasm in your post, but there was also sarcasm in Mauiwowee's post. However, you replied to it, making it quite apparent that you honestly believe a good portion of what you wrote sarcastically, even if to a lesser extent.
Believed it is true of who exactly? While he labeled all liberals as having a mental disability, I would love for you to find where in that post I did the same to conservatives.

YES!! THE SAME DOCTORED IONFORMATION!!

The only difference is BUSH KNEW IT WAS DOCTORED. Clinton and Kerry DIDN'T.

If you whisper in my ear, and tell me a lie....and then I pass that lie on to others, believing I'm telling the truth....that does not make me a liar. It means I was, in good faith, passing on bad information.

Where is your proof that Bush knew it was doctored - cite me your source please.

Believed it is true of who exactly? While he labeled all liberals as having a mental disability, I would love for you to find where in that post I did the same to conservatives.

You didn't, really, but I embellished because my post was mainly meant to be sarcastic and humorous. You did, however, assign a mental disability to anyone who speaks Republican points, doesn't read liberal websites, blames lack of evidence on liberal media, blames Clinton for anything that happened as a result of his presidency, or voted for Bush.

To sum up Mauiwowee's brilliant initial points, all people with liberal views or people that do not like Bush but do like Clinton are Democrats, and all Democrats are afflicted with a disorder that makes them unreasonable.

To sum up Xhadam's brilliant counterpoint, all people with conservative views or people that do not like Clinton but do like Bush are Republicans, and all Republicans are afflicted with a disorder that makes them unreasonable.

Brilliant words of wisdom from brilliant debaters.

Not quite right, my criticism is with the liberals, not the democrats per se. There are many reasonable democrats and not all liberals are democrats, though the bulk seem to be, and definitely the most rabid have assumed positions of leadership in the democrat party.

Be that as it may, I've been addressing on issue only - the claim that Bush deliberately lied about WMD's - The evidence is clear that everyone believed they existed - it can't be a lie unless you know it to be false and I've yet to see a lib who claimed it was a knowing lie on Bush's part who could provide any evidence to back up that claim, and when you point out that liberals, like Kerry and Clinton, also believed WMD's existed, they say it is Bush's fault they believed it which is ludicrous and the ultimate in tortured and circular logic.

You didn't, really, but I embellished because my post was mainly meant to be sarcastic and humorous. You did, however, assign a mental disability to anyone who speaks Republican points, doesn't read liberal websites, blames lack of evidence on liberal media, blames Clinton for anything that happened as a result of his presidency, or voted for Bush.
On the contrary. I said those were symptoms. Merely having a runny nose does not mean you have a cold, the flu, west nile, etc. all. Those are things one who has cognitive dissonance does, not to say all who do those things have cognitive dissonance.

Not quite right, my criticism is with the liberals, not the democrats per se. There are many reasonable democrats and not all liberals are democrats, though the bulk seem to be, and definitely the most rabid have assumed positions of leadership in the democrat party.

Be that as it may, I've been addressing on issue only - the claim that Bush deliberately lied about WMD's - The evidence is clear that everyone believed they existed - it can't be a lie unless you know it to be false and I've yet to see a lib who claimed it was a knowing lie on Bush's part who could provide any evidence to back up that claim, and when you point out that liberals, like Kerry and Clinton, also believed WMD's existed, they say it is Bush's fault they believed it which is ludicrous and the ultimate in tortured and circular logic.
And this is exaclty what I was talking about cognitive dissonance. I hav eposted three links in this thread that demonstrated few believed he had weapons of mass destruction and none believed he had significant programs. Yet he keeps on repeating the same lie over and over. Everyone believed it. Everyone believed it.

On the contrary. I said those were symptoms. Merely having a runny nose does not mean you have a cold, the flu, west nile, etc. all. Those are things one who has cognitive dissonance does, not to say all who do those things have cognitive dissonance.

... Whatever. You implied that Mauiwowee had said disease, though he possessed no more symptoms than I listed, thus if those do not merit having the disease, you should not have implied that he had it by quoting him. But, whatever, dodge what you will.

And this is exaclty what I was talking about cognitive dissonance. I hav eposted three links in this thread that demonstrated few believed he had weapons of mass destruction and none believed he had significant programs. Yet he keeps on repeating the same lie over and over. Everyone believed it. Everyone believed it.

That's a lie, right there. Even if you exclude the CIA, MI 6, and Russian intel, and pretend that the Downing Street Memo is without-a-doubt proof that Bush lied, Mauiwowee still believed it, and one is enough to make "none believed..." a false statement, and a statement so obviously false that, if one believes Bush lied about the WMD's, one must also believe that you lied about no one believing in the existence of said programs.

That's a lie, right there. Fine, next to nobody with any intelligence knowledge believed he had signfiicant programs. Even if you exclude the CIA, MI 6, and Russian intel, They all knew the Bush estimates wer overstated, the Russian specifically knew there was nothing there. My links covered this. and pretend that the Downing Street Memo is without-a-doubt proof that Bush lied, It is. Mauiwowee still believed it, and one is enough to make "none believed..." a false statement, and a statement so obviously false that, if one believes Bush lied about the WMD's, one must also believe that you lied about no one believing in the existence of said programs. Semantics much? I suppose if you want to be literal and count everyone instead of my intend of counting organizations of the intelligence persuasion as I had intended, yes, I suppose you could make a case that some Sheeple unaquainted with intelligence thought he did have WMDs.

They all knew the Bush estimates wer overstated, the Russian specifically knew there was nothing there. My links covered this.

Bullshit, you posted two links, one of which was to an opinion article.

It is.

The Downing Street Memo is simply the interpretation of one Matthew Rycroft, and hardly stands on its own as proof. It offers no true evidence beyond speculation and alleged comments. As for this bullshit conspiracy theory about PNAC having a hand in 9/11 because they wanted into Iraq, it's a moronic assertion to make, and is one of the more poorly supported conspiracy theories out there.

Fine, next to nobody with any intelligence knowledge believed he had signfiicant programs.

Semantics much? I suppose if you want to be literal and count everyone instead of my intend of counting organizations of the intelligence persuasion as I had intended, yes, I suppose you could make a case that some Sheeple unaquainted with intelligence thought he did have WMDs.

"Everyone with a knowledge of intel knew Bush was wrong" is possibly the most incorrect thing I've heard in this entire thread.

You know what, how is Bush corrupt? Please point me because from what I know he isn't corrupt. I'm pretty sure he hasn't had a sex scandal yet ;)

Also Bush has already told his exit strategy. Maybe a bit vage but it still outlines it. I saw it on the news (NBC) but too lazy to dig it up now. Maybe tomorrow.

Also don't bring someone's private life into public life. He didn't do any of those during his term so I don't really care about that. Rigged election… faulty machines given to blacks and Jews… definitely not private life.

Bullshit, you posted two links, one of which was to an opinion article. That's a lie. I posted three links to two sites. Neither was an opinion article. One was a link to the Downing street memos and the other was to a cited ISIS article on international intelligence perspectives.

The Downing Street Memo is simply the interpretation of one Matthew Rycroft, and hardly stands on its own as proof. It offers no true evidence beyond speculation and alleged comments. In large part at the very least they were letters from multiple sources. You seem once again to not know what you are talking about. As for this bullshit conspiracy theory about PNAC having a hand in 9/11 because they wanted into Iraq, it's a moronic assertion to make, and is one of the more poorly supported conspiracy theories out there. Duh-version, moving on.


"Everyone with a knowledge of intel knew Bush was wrong" is possibly the most incorrect thing I've heard in this entire thread.
Then you wouldn't know accuracy if it came up and soddomized you. The CIA knew Bush's estimates were wrong, the French, Russians, and British knew. The Department of energy knew. The one person who said otherwise was labeled by the CIA higher ups a a liar and was given the dubious codename of "Curveball." Nobody who had the intelligence believed that shit.

That's a lie. I posted three links to two sites. Neither was an opinion article. One was a link to the Downing street memos and the other was to a cited ISIS article on international intelligence perspectives.

Now who's arguing semantics? You provided links to two sites. Whatever. Apologies.

In large part at the very least they were letters from multiple sources. You seem once again to not know what you are talking about.

I am referring to the original document linked that was first dubbed the Downing Street Memo, as it is the document generally posted as the strongest evidence against Bush. I was perfectly correct in my statement.

Then you wouldn't know accuracy if it came up and soddomized you. The CIA knew Bush's estimates were wrong, the French, Russians, and British knew. The Department of energy knew. The one person who said otherwise was labeled by the CIA higher ups a a liar and was given the dubious codename of "Curveball." Nobody who had the intelligence believed that shit.

News flash: those that didn't initially believe the intel were the minority.

Now who's arguing semantics? You provided links to two sites. Whatever. Apologies. More important was the content of those links which you also got wrong.

I am referring to the original document linked that was first dubbed the Downing Street Memo, as it is the document generally posted as the strongest evidence against Bush. I was perfectly correct in my statement. Except of course the other half dozen memos also listed on the page that fall under the downing street memos category.

News flash: those that didn't initially believe the intel were the minority.
In the US perhaps, globally you are wrong. In the intelligence community specifically you are wrong. Just because most of the US population was mislead does not mean most people in a position to know what they were talking about were duped.

More important was the content of those links which you also got wrong.

Fine, my apologies. The lack of sources and general persuasive feel of the article I was wrong about tricked me into assuming it was an opinion article.

In the US perhaps, globally you are wrong. In the intelligence community specifically you are wrong. Just because most of the US population was mislead does not mean most people in a position to know what they were talking about were duped.

What countries are we talking about, here? I'm referring to the U.S., Britain, and Russia. Initially, I'm right. More people started changing their minds along the way.

What countries are we talking about, here? I'm referring to the U.S., Britain, and Russia. Initially, I'm right. More people started changing their minds along the way.
No they did not. The claims the Bush administration made were rejected by the intelligence community right off the bat. I already provided a link showing the Russians and French thought they were bad. How about you provide a reliable link showing otherwise?

No they did not. The claims the Bush administration made were rejected by the intelligence community right off the bat. I already provided a link showing the Russians and French thought they were bad. How about you provide a reliable link showing otherwise?

How about you provide a reliable link showing that to be the case in the first place before I waste my precious time debating this topic again? You provided a persuasively written link void of sources. That's hardly "reliable." I remember a reasonable amount of the intel coming from the Russians.

How about you provide a reliable link showing that to be the case in the first place before I waste my precious time debating this topic again? You provided a persuasively written link void of sources. That's hardly "reliable." I remember a reasonable amount of the intel coming from the Russians.
Whatever you say chuckles. Thank you for proving you never read the link I posted ont he subject. The one that the entire second half of the article is the six citations they used to write it but according to you had no sources. I think it is about time you took your ball and went home so the big boys can talk.

Whatever you say chuckles. Thank you for proving you never read the link I posted ont he subject. The one that the entire second half of the article is the six citations they used to write it but according to you had no sources. I think it is about time you took your ball and went home so the big boys can talk.

Bah, my bad. I'm arguing another topic on my friend's forum right now, I thought the other guy's links were yours. Did read it, just forgot yours had sources. I fucked up.

Alright, here's one (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html) that in part points out suggestions by Russian intel that Saddam was a threat; still looking for a couple more.

Anyway, I'm really tired of arguing this with you, I'll probably be back on later, or if not tomorrow, if you wish to continue this. Russian intel did have an influence in supporting case for Iraq war, so did British, nobody thought this intel was bullshit until later, we fucked up. Now I'm going to go beat my head against a wall.

:headbang:

Alright, here's one (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html) that in part points out suggestions by Russian intel that Saddam was a threat; still looking for a couple more.

Anyway, I'm really tired of arguing this with you, I'll probably be back on later, or if not tomorrow, if you wish to continue this. Russian intel did have an influence in supporting case for Iraq war, so did British, nobody thought this intel was bullshit until later, we fucked up. Now I'm going to go beat my head against a wall.

:headbang:
Point of fact, your link says nothing about Iraq having WMDs.

What are your opinions?

Lose (or "loose") what..?


-The REAL Iakeo

Where is your proof that Bush knew it was doctored - cite me your source please.
Even if he didn't know it was doctored beforehand--unlikely, but I'll grant the possibility--that doesn't excuse his continued behavior of linking the 9/11 attacks with the war in Iraq. That, good sir, is lying, deliberate and boldfaced.

Where is your proof that Bush knew it was doctored - cite me your source please.

Oh, for Christ's Freaking Sake!! :headbang:

For THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME...
Read the Downing Street Memo!!

"the facts were being fixed around the policy."
Those eight words, contained in the Memo...are all the documentation I need to show that the intelligence was being DOCTORED...or at best, spun in a way that led to the conclusion everyone in the Bush/Blair Administrations wanted to produce!

It tells me that facts that directly went against the desired conclusion were either discarded out of hand, or were twisted into a shape that would make it fit into a course of action already decided upon.

How many more times do we have to tell you Bushbots this?!!?!?

P.S. To Euroslavia: Do you SEE why we liberals get such a bad temper after a while!?!? We document it, we back it up, we prove it, we shove it in their faces, and STILL they refuse to acknowledge it, and continue to ask us to prove our case!

Let me get some monkies off my back:
1. I dislike Sheehan. It's one thing to protest the war. It's another thing to call Bush a killer all because your son VOLUNTARILY joined the military and was killed on a mission after he was told that HE COULD STAY BEHIND.

2. Sheehan went from protesting to smearing. It's not the what some of you don't get. It's the how, and possibly why.

3. I dislike it when people say I worship Bush when I agree with him on some things. Key word is some. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I'm independant from political parties. I don't let a group of assholes tell me how to think. I am the one controlling how I think, unlike many of you hardcores.

All most of us "hardcores," as you would have us, WANT....is JUST FOR ONCE...for Bush to FINALLY be held accountable for his action and his rotten policies. Just for once, we want to see him have to own up to making a mistake.

You didn't, really, but I embellished because my post was mainly meant to be sarcastic and humorous. You did, however, assign a mental disability to anyone who speaks Republican points, doesn't read liberal websites, blames lack of evidence on liberal media, blames Clinton for anything that happened as a result of his presidency, or voted for Bush.

Well, I ALSO assign a mental disorder (Cognitive Dissonance) on ANYONE to whom I have to keep citing the same sources twenty times, shove it in their face, and they STILL reject it out of hand, claim I haven't proved anything, and then claim to have won the debate because I supposedly could not prove my case.

Tell you what...how about NEXT time you want me to prove anything to you, YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WILL ACCEPT AS PROOF. Because I'm betting you will only accept as "proof" sources that make Bush look good, whether or not that is the actual truth. Anything that makes Bush look bad, true or not, will be discarded out of hand by you. That's my wager.

And you can read into this post whatever you wish.

Not quite right, my criticism is with the liberals, not the democrats per se. There are many reasonable democrats and not all liberals are democrats, though the bulk seem to be, and definitely the most rabid have assumed positions of leadership in the democrat party.

Be that as it may, I've been addressing on issue only - the claim that Bush deliberately lied about WMD's - The evidence is clear that everyone believed they existed - it can't be a lie unless you know it to be false and I've yet to see a lib who claimed it was a knowing lie on Bush's part who could provide any evidence to back up that claim, and when you point out that liberals, like Kerry and Clinton, also believed WMD's existed, they say it is Bush's fault they believed it which is ludicrous and the ultimate in tortured and circular logic.
Really now? And THAT of course is why the famous Sixteen Words were so carefully inserted into the State of the Union Address?? Remember?? "British intelligence has learned..." so that he could spout what he KNEW to be false information...and later deny he'd done so, by blaming it on bad intel from the British.
Why the need to be so crafty, if not to create a wormhole for himself to slither out of, when his claims were found to be false?

Why not just say that "we have knowledge that Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger?" Because he had knowledge that IRAQ HAD DONE NO SUCH THING!! Joseph Wilson told him so. And, in retaliation for bringing a message Bush didn't want to hear, Bush operatives (Rove and Libby) outed Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife...as being a covert CIA operative!!

And don't tell me they didn't...or that they wouldn't. When Bush needed a boost in the polls he sold our ONLY double-agent mole we had planted in the Al-Queda network! I forget the guy's name. Someone please remind me. At any rate, Bush damn well knew the information was false, and that is why it was so craftily worded in the SOTU Address. so he could slither out from his words later, when they were proved to be false.

Wake up, folks, Bush's handlers are seriously Machiavellian! Bush, himself, isn't smart enough to do this.

Katrina will wipe the protest off the news for awhile.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

The evidence is clear that everyone believed they existed - it can't be a lie unless you know it to be false and I've yet to see a lib who claimed it was a knowing lie on Bush's part who could provide any evidence to back up that claim, and when you point out that liberals, like Kerry and Clinton, also believed WMD's existed, they say it is Bush's fault they believed it which is ludicrous and the ultimate in tortured and circular logic.
Firstly, not EVERYONE believed that Iraq had WMD and/or believed Bush's reasons for wanting to invade Iraq. Please note that these comments are dated Friday, 27 September, 2002 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2263284.stm):

If Saddam decided to trudge along the right path, after ten years,give him the chance to correct his steps. We look forward to the Inspectors role in bringing Iraqi leadership in line with the world.
Khalid Rahim, Toronto,Canada

Nothing reminds me more about the old Soviet times than reading so many zombie-like comments about the threat Iraq poses to the world (Glory to Mr. Bush for our happy childhood!). Bush needs to take off his Superman's cape and take some lessons on etiquette and respect of the opinion of the rest of the world as well as restrain himself from instilling public ignorance.
Oleg, Ukraine

What I would like to know is whether the US is willing to answer the critical question - would all sanctions be removed from Iraq, if indeed it is discovered that there are no weapons of mass destruction present. This would indicate how sincere the US is in its intentions.
Mahdi, Dubai, UAE

I doubt the sincerity of both countries. Saddam is obviously a dictator, no doubt about it. But the way Bush presents his case, it looks more like him wanting to finish his father's job. I wouldn't be surprised if this is about Iraqi oil and not about bringing democracy to a battered country.
Baukje, Netherlands

Weapons inspectors won't resolve the crisis because Mr Bush doesn't want the crisis to be resolved. There is nothing Iraq, the United Nations or Britain can do to stop an American attack.
Rod, Atlanta USA

Has anyone noticed that Bush's strategy for fomenting war with Iraq could be used to justify a pre-emptive attack on virtually any regime?
Mark McCarty, San Diego, CA, USA

Anyone who thinks that this is about more than politics and oil, well, I have a couple of bridges that I would like to discuss with you. There has not yet been any real evidence submitted to prove that Saddam is the threat to the world that Bush and his war-dogs are trying to make him out to be. Why does Bush not give a definitive answer to the question of how long he will keep a military presence in Iraq after any war? He can't even tell us how long we will be in Afghanistan.
Frank Wright, Grand Junction, USA

Survival of the fittest is clearly the application in this situation. America has shown us not only that it's a superpower but also one of hypocritical bully.
Samnang, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Inspectors won't make a difference; America has already decided what it wants. If inspectors had to search American secret sites, I'm sure there would be many obstructions. America - stop playing bully! UK - sort your own country out before wrecking somebody else's! Good luck to everyone trying to stop this poor excuse for a war.
L. McKenna (16), UK

I'm confused. It's only a few days since the US stance was that a return of weapons inspectors was essential. Now they're threatening to block that return, unless the UN gives them a mandate to attack Iraq anyway. I supported America on this issue until today - now I've changed my mind. It appears that Bush wants a war, and the whole weapons inspectors thing was just a pretext.
John, England

The big problem, which no-one in this Talking Point has tackled, is consistency: Bush cannot claim to be defending the civilised ideals of democracy and the rule of law if he bypasses the UN and launches a war on his own initiative. You cannot claim to defend democracy and spit in its face at the same time.
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

There are lots more examples that not EVERYONE was buying into Bush's bullshit.

The second and perhaps most important part of this argument is WHY!!

WHY didn't Bush allow the UN weapons inspectors to finish the job that was mandated.

WHY did Bush invade Iraq without obtaining a Resolution from the Security Council.

The whole Iraq War situation was a con job from the start, and the con started here:

IRAQ ON THE RECORD
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf)

IMHO, there is no exit strategy because the BushCons don't want to leave.

Casey Sheehan, reinlisted. Hear that, he reinlisted knowing full well what was going on. Her family has broken with her over this. Why should he meet with her again anyway. What about the military families of fallen soldiers that back Bush? Do you think they would appreciate him giving special reverence to people calling their sacrifices "dying in vain."
The United Nations itself had 17 resolutions against Saddam. Just when was someone going to step up to the plate. Don't forget that it was Clinton along with the congress, including all the power gloating democrats, that made the removal of Saddam official U.S. policy.
I suppose you can't give Bush any credit for Seria pulling out of Lebanon, Libya dismantling it's nuclear projects over seen by Saddam's nuclear scientists, or the democratically elected representatives in Afganistan and Iraq.
Bush is the only western leader that can be taken at his word! Look at Iran. Iran laughs at the euro-weanies. Anyone notice that. Euro-weanies say, "Stop your nuclear program or we won't talk to you any more." Iran, "Ooooo scary."
The inspector didn't even find the weapons that we knew were there because we sold them to Saddam. Don't you people know sarin gas, mustard gas, and chinese weapons not permitted have been found in Iraq? You lemmings.

Exit strategy has been clearly defined. It is defined with one word. Victory. I don't hear any of you calling for a pullout of South Korea, Germany, Serbia. What is up with that? I suppose Saddam really wasn't giving terrorists sanctuary? He wasn't really paying terrorist groups to kill Isrealis and alongside them Americans and other nations in Isreal.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Lets look at the ENTIRE text of this quote by John Kerry (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040406-053830-5901r.htm):

In a January 2003 speech at Georgetown University, Kerry said, "(We) need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm."

Whole new ball game? He didn't talk about invading Iraq. He talked about disarming Iraq through the United Nations.

BTW, it appears that this was ADDED to the text that you quoted:

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Why was this added?????

Up until Bush decide to invade Iraq, that is exactly what the weapons inspectors were doing. The ironic point here, is that the UN inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD!!

And what did Kerry have to say about Bush's call for the invasion of Iraq?

Kerry campaign says Bush misled US on Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/11/kerry_campaign_says_bush_misled_us_on_iraq?pg=full)

Kerry said Bush had personally misled him into casting his vote to support the war by indicating that the administration would exhaust diplomatic options before using force. In fact, Kerry said several Middle Eastern leaders, including Saudis, had told him the Bush administration was committed to war more than a year before the actual invasion. But he set aside his concerns after receiving assurances from President Bush.

"The president went back on his word," Kerry said. "I take that personally."

I imagine, that if one goes through all the other quotes that are attributed to Democrats that you have partially listed here, one would find many more that have been taken out of context as the above Kerry quote that you posted. :eek:

Casey Sheehan, reinlisted. Hear that, he reinlisted knowing full well what was going on. Her family has broken with her over this. Why should he meet with her again anyway. What about the military families of fallen soldiers that back Bush? Do you think they would appreciate him giving special reverence to people calling their sacrifices "dying in vain."
The United Nations itself had 17 resolutions against Saddam. Just when was someone going to step up to the plate. Don't forget that it was Clinton along with the congress, including all the power gloating democrats, that made the removal of Saddam official U.S. policy.
I suppose you can't give Bush any credit for Seria pulling out of Lebanon, Libya dismantling it's nuclear projects over seen by Saddam's nuclear scientists, or the democratically elected representatives in Afganistan and Iraq.
Bush is the only western leader that can be taken at his word! Look at Iran. Iran laughs at the euro-weanies. Anyone notice that. Euro-weanies say, "Stop your nuclear program or we won't talk to you any more." Iran, "Ooooo scary."
The inspector didn't even find the weapons that we knew were there because we sold them to Saddam. Don't you people know sarin gas, mustard gas, and chinese weapons not permitted have been found in Iraq? You lemmings.

Exit strategy has been clearly defined. It is defined with one word. Victory. I don't hear any of you calling for a pullout of South Korea, Germany, Serbia. What is up with that? I suppose Saddam really wasn't giving terrorists sanctuary? He wasn't really paying terrorist groups to kill Isrealis and alongside them Americans and other nations in Isreal.

One correction and one question, then, smart-aleck...
1. BLAIR had far more to do with Libya getting rid of it's WMD's. That's the correction.

2. How do you define "victory?" I thought "Mission Accomplished" already??
So HOW exactly, are you defining "victory" then? The definition of it seems to keep changing, that is the basic problem.

How about answering my question?

its funny... this sheehan lady wasn't in the news before her sun died. i bet she supported her son joining the military before the war... but as soon as her son died, shes all anti-war. excuse me, but thats a weak anti-war statement. "before i felt immediate pain, i was for/indifferent to this war. but now that my son has died and i know what it feels like to lose a loved one i am against the war." that just says she doesnt care about all the other young men dying, just her own son. which is very selfish (although i suppose most people would act the same way)... reminds me of that lady in fahrenheit 9/11... thats a weak anti war statement.

for the record. i do not think we should have gone to war, but now that we are there, we need to stay the course and stuff... if we back out know we'll be known as pussies the world over. imagine a day when FRANCE calls US wimps. thats just horrible.

Lets look at the ENTIRE text of this quote by John Kerry (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040406-053830-5901r.htm):

In a January 2003 speech at Georgetown University, Kerry said, "(We) need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm."

Whole new ball game? He didn't talk about invading Iraq. He talked about disarming Iraq through the United Nations.

BTW, it appears that this was ADDED to the text that you quoted:

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Why was this added?????

:

Why did you leave it out? Here's the full test of his speech:

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

its funny... this sheehan lady wasn't in the news before her sun died. i bet she supported her son joining the military before the war... but as soon as her son died, shes all anti-war. excuse me, but thats a weak anti-war statement. "before i felt immediate pain, i was for/indifferent to this war. but now that my son has died and i know what it feels like to lose a loved one i am against the war." that just says she doesnt care about all the other young men dying, just her own son. which is very selfish (although i suppose most people would act the same way)... reminds me of that lady in fahrenheit 9/11... thats a weak anti war statement.

for the record. i do not think we should have gone to war, but now that we are there, we need to stay the course and stuff... if we back out know we'll be known as pussies the world over. imagine a day when FRANCE calls US wimps. thats just horrible.

She was against the war before her son died. Cindy offered to take Casey up to Canada, so she says, or even run him over with a car so he wouldn't have to go. But Casey knew his unit was going to Iraq at the time he re-enlisted.

5) The majority of the US wanted to go to war when we invaded Iraq.

No they didn't. Poll results said things like

28% oppose the war.
32% "think war is a bad idea, but support the troops."
40% support the war.

That's 60% against with a little more than half of them aware that they live near rednecks who'll trash their cars and throw bricks through their windows if they say anything that might give them away as a "peacenik."

Yet the anchors presenting these poll results would present it as 72% in favor of the war (interpreting "support the troops" to mean "favor them hanging out in a God forsaken hellscape waiting to get their arms and legs blown off) and 28% against the war.

6) She's not necesarily supporting the enemy, but she sure as hell ain't helping the troops. She's associated herself with radical leftists like Michael Moore, who has the gall to call the insurgents 'minutemen', basically equating them to the minutemen of the American Revolution. Guilty by association.

What are you doing to help the troops? She's working with the people who are trying to get them brought home.

7) Newsflash: Bush does not control every aspect of this nation. Blaming him for the death of our soldiers just doesn't cut it. They knew full well when they signed up that they could die.

He had complete control over whether or not they would get their body armor, or whether or not they would be sent to a pointless war of agression in the first place. If their is blame to bear, some of it has to rest with him.

Another newsflash: Things aren't that terrible in America. In fact, they're pretty decent. Maybe you should get YOUR head out of YOUR ass.

Who said things were terrible in America? There was mention made that his approval rating was in the crapper, and it is.

She was against the war before her son died. Cindy offered to take Casey up to Canada, so she says, or even run him over with a car so he wouldn't have to go. But Casey knew his unit was going to Iraq at the time he re-enlisted.
Source?

its funny... this sheehan lady wasn't in the news before her sun died. i bet she supported her son joining the military before the war... but as soon as her son died, shes all anti-war. excuse me, but thats a weak anti-war statement. "before i felt immediate pain, i was for/indifferent to this war. but now that my son has died and i know what it feels like to lose a loved one i am against the war." that just says she doesnt care about all the other young men dying, just her own son. which is very selfish (although i suppose most people would act the same way)... reminds me of that lady in fahrenheit 9/11... thats a weak anti war statement.

for the record. i do not think we should have gone to war, but now that we are there, we need to stay the course and stuff... if we back out know we'll be known as pussies the world over. imagine a day when FRANCE calls US wimps. thats just horrible.

Hmmm...choice between being called "pussy" or "brutal imperialistic bully" or "international pariah." Tough choice. I think I'll take door number one, thank you, Monty.

Why did you leave it out? Here's the full test of his speech:
Thank you for providing the FULL text. The quote that you originally posted would give the wrong impression that Kerry was actually totally supportive of the war with Iraq. Obviously, Kerry would have handled the Iraq situation totally different from the way Bush proceeded. So if you posted this misquoted Kerry text to deflect away from Bush's irresponsible actions in regards to Iraq, then I think you failed.

I will repost the text that you supplied and highlight the words that you omitted in your first post, and further highlight in red the MOST important points of his speech.


Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
As you can readily see, quoting an individual out of context can change the entire underlying intent. Kerry was all for keeping allies onside and using due process (UN inspections) to ensure the total disarmament of Iraq WITHOUT fighting an unnecessary, costly, and deadly war.

If I had more time, I would go through the list of (partial) quotes by other Democrats that you posted earlier and I think I would end up with the same result. However, I do think I made my point. Misquotes that can radically change the intent of the original message are disengenious.

Thank you for providing the FULL text. The quote that you originally posted would give the wrong impression that Kerry was actually totally supportive of the war with Iraq. Obviously, Kerry would have handled the Iraq situation totally different from the way Bush proceeded. So if you posted this misquoted Kerry text to deflect away from Bush's irresponsible actions in regards to Iraq, then I think you failed.

I will repost the text that you supplied and highlight the words that you omitted in your first post, and further highlight in red the MOST important points of his speech.


As you can readily see, quoting an individual out of context can change the entire underlying intent. Kerry was all for keeping allies onside and using due process (UN inspections) to ensure the total disarmament of Iraq WITHOUT fighting an unnecessary, costly, and deadly war.

If I had more time, I would go through the list of (partial) quotes by other Democrats that you posted earlier and I think I would end up with the same result. However, I do think I made my point. Misquotes that can radically change the intent of the original message are disengenious.


I was addressing the comments here in this thread that Bush and his administration lied about there being WMDs in Iraq and being a threat. If Bush lied, then many Democrats also lied. Look at this comment made by Kerry:

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein

What is he talking about here? AK-47s? No, Kerry is saying we need to disarm Saddam of WMDs altough we now know that he didn't have any.

It's disengenious for people to say the Bush administration lied about WMDs in Iraq while totally ignoring the fact that Democrats had been saying for several years that Saddam had them.

snip.
Still quoting out of context, I see. :rolleyes:

Still quoting out of context, I see. :rolleyes:

Can you point out any of the qoutes I posted where the person says that Saddam doesn't pose a threat and doesn't have WMDs?

Originally Posted by Kerry Speech
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.....etc.

Kerry just made the case for war against Iraq . After ten years sanctions and the UN inspections had proved USELESS... ten years to comply and still the idiot was giving the world the finger . You say continued efforts with the UN would have worked ...I say after ten years they didn't so what makes you think more time would have been usefull ?
History shows what use appeasment and diplomacy is to dictators .
You only have to go back as far as Neville Chamberlain , Hallifax , Baldwin , Henderson and the rest of the bunch of " peace at any price " wankers to see the results . " A covenant without a sword is just words "
The UN is the covenant the US is the sword .
Saddam is in jail and his country is struggling through democratic proccess THANKS to the sword . The words alone will always fail .

Kerry is about clear as mud on the issue of Iraq. Prior to the Persian Gulf War, Bush41 built up a broad coalition, got approval for the use of military force from the UN Security Council as there was ample evidence that Iraq had indeed invaded Kuwait but despite all this, Kerry voted against the use of force against Iraq.

So I think it rather silly to try to argue that Kerry expected Bush to build up a broad coalition and get UN backing prior to invading Iraq when all of those conditions were met before and Kerry voted against it.

He won't talk to Cindy? Why not?

I believe he spoke to her last year... and he was on vacation. I agree it would have been politic to speak to her again, but really, if someone walked up to your home and demanded to talk with you about anything, would you?

It burns me that people ignore so many things about the Iraq War.

Young people in surrounding oppressed countries are seeing that they, too, could have freedom. They are then pressuring their government for more liberties and getting them. Some countries are even having free elections for the first time. Others are getting rid of tyrannical dictators.

Do you really believe that Saddam would have woken up one day and decided not to be an asshole? No, and 'talks' wouldn't have made him do that either.

And then there are people like this Cindy lady or Dominici up there who think that we should bring home the troops now. That would be one of the worst mistakes in our history. It would mean leaving before setting up a stable government over in Iraq. It would mean leaving Iraq so that any neighboring Warlord could just come in and take it. We left Germany after WWI unstable, and this facilitated Hitler's rise to power.

It burns me that people can be so ignorant. They only see soldiers dying and think that it's their job to do something about it. They think they're so intelligent when they don't even think about the situation logically, or even know about the entire situation.

Source?

"Casey knew the First Cavalry was going to end up going to Iraq when he re-enlisted."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/10/int04050.html


"I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to go to that immoral war."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/29/1434216

Can you point out any of the qoutes I posted where the person says that Saddam doesn't pose a threat and doesn't have WMDs?
The fact is that your list of misquoted statements is irrelevant without proper context and as such are no more than Words of Mass Deception (WMD). :rolleyes:

The Democrats were looking for peaceful solutions.

Bush misled Americans, was looking for war and got it. Pity. :eek:

Can you point out any of the qoutes I posted where the person says that Saddam doesn't pose a threat and doesn't have WMDs?
Canuck Heaven did it already--you either ignored his post, or were unable to comprehend it. You choose.

The fact is that your list of misquoted statements is irrelevant without proper context and as such are no more than Words of Mass Deception (WMD). :rolleyes:

The Democrats were looking for peaceful solutions.

Bush misled Americans, was looking for war and got it. Pity. :eek:

I aasked a simple question and you tried to dodge it. Again, can you point out any of the qoutes I posted where the person says that Saddam doesn't pose a threat and doesn't have WMDs?

"Casey knew the First Cavalry was going to end up going to Iraq when he re-enlisted."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/10/int04050.html


"I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to go to that immoral war."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/29/1434216
So inf act Casey did not support the war as people have tried to claim, he felt he needed to support his fellow soldiers. Once again, comments taken out of context can have many different meanings.

I aasked a simple question and you tried to dodge it. Again, can you point out any of the qoutes I posted where the person says that Saddam doesn't pose a threat and doesn't have WMDs?
I don't dodge questions. As I tried to explain, I feel that your posting of partial text statements are completely at odds with the context of the message that was being delivered and I find such actions as yours to be completely disengenuous.

Whether the quote(s) used the words "threat" or "WMD", is not the issue here. The issue revolves around what the resolve would be to counter these "threats" and/or "WMD". Democrats en mass were seeking a "peaceful" solution, and by going to war without exhausting due process, the Bush administration reneged on their responsibilities to those in Congress who supported Bush's call to arms only as a LAST resort.

IMHO, Bush lied and deceived Congress and the people of America. Bush's illegal war violated the UN Charter, alienated many traditional allies, angered the Arab community in particular, and citizens around the globe in general. The war has also resulted in over 20,000 coalition casualties, and death or injury to over 100,000 Iraqis. It has led to increased terrorism and the destruction of many Iraqi cities and towns. And to top it all off, the people of America have paid over $200 Billion for this bloodbath.

You can defend Bush all you want but in the end, the facts speak for themselves. If you believe that posting truncated quotes by Democrats is a viable defense for the misdeeds of Bush, then I think that you are sadly mistaken.

Cheap shot. Just what you'd expect from someone who cannot debate the legitimate points. Instead of taking on the message, and the points of the debate, he attacks the messenger. Typical tactic of one who knows he cannot win the debate.

so far i have not read anything that shows that any of you know what you are talking about in detail.

so far i have not read anything that shows that any of you know what you are talking about in detail.
We could say the same about you considering that this is your FIRST post. :rolleyes:

We await your knowledgeable rebuttal.

so far i have not read anything that shows that any of you know what you are talking about in detail.

That doesn't surprise me, since most people refuse to read anything that does not validate their already-held opinions.

Exactly what would convince you that we DO know what we are talking about, but that we have arrived, unsing the same facts...at a different conclusion than you...and that our view is every bit as valid a point of view to have?

Somehow, I don't think ANYTHING we could say....if you even bothered to read it...would convince you of this, so why bother trying?

I don't dodge questions. As I tried to explain, I feel that your posting of partial text statements are completely at odds with the context of the message that was being delivered and I find such actions as yours to be completely disengenuous.

Whether the quote(s) used the words "threat" or "WMD", is not the issue here. The issue revolves around what the resolve would be to counter these "threats" and/or "WMD". Democrats en mass were seeking a "peaceful" solution, and by going to war without exhausting due process, the Bush administration reneged on their responsibilities to those in Congress who supported Bush's call to arms only as a LAST resort.

IMHO, Bush lied and deceived Congress and the people of America. Bush's illegal war violated the UN Charter, alienated many traditional allies, angered the Arab community in particular, and citizens around the globe in general. The war has also resulted in over 20,000 coalition casualties, and death or injury to over 100,000 Iraqis. It has led to increased terrorism and the destruction of many Iraqi cities and towns. And to top it all off, the people of America have paid over $200 Billion for this bloodbath.

You can defend Bush all you want but in the end, the facts speak for themselves. If you believe that posting truncated quotes by Democrats is a viable defense for the misdeeds of Bush, then I think that you are sadly mistaken.


Again, were not Democrats also saying that Saddam posed a threat and had WMDs?

Again, were not Democrats also saying that Saddam posed a threat and had WMDs?
Some did--but why were they saying that? They--and I'm talking about the people who were speaking about this subject post 2001--were saying that based on--and read this carefully--the fraudulent and phony intelligence provided to them by the Bush administration.

So if they came to the wrong conclusions based on lies fed to them by this administration, you can hardly blame them for their confusion. Bush and his administration, however, can't hide behind that, because they were the ones actively fixing the intelligence around the facts in order to make the case for war. That's the difference here, no matter how you try to twist it.