+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 33 to 48 of 48

  1. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    432

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    I think that the idea that removing saddam by whatever means possible was always a good one. It simply does not make sense to me why anyone would not see that as being in our interests. To claim that ALL of the evidence about his weapons and his plans, his prior use of them, his financial and other support of terrorism in his region, his willingness to attack his neighbors and his own people...was erroneous... is just not realistic or productive.

    Because when the President sends soldiers to fight and die, he is obligated to tell the truth, the real reason why he is asking Americans to fight and die.

    We as Americans have a right, a civil right...the right to pursue happiness and freedom. When the President is not fully honest with the citizens, he is in essence prohibiting them from that right.


    Those who try to claim that it was both a bad decision to remove him AND a good thing that he is gone are playing the worst kind of politics. Isn't there a way that those who disagree with us going into Iraq can make their case without accusing anyone of falsifying evidence? Is their position so weak, in their own opinion, that it requires something that is not in evidence to be true?

    That would be true if there were no evidence or testimony to the contrary. But, there is so, it's a valid concern and need to be investigated.

    Bush, in his rush to war, didn't even consider how the Arab nations would react to our invasion. ANY IDIOT should have known that Muslims in the Mid East would rally around other Muslims. To make it worse, Bush used religious rhetoric in his speeches, comments and presentations....He is responsible for allowing this action to be painted into a Holy War.


    In other words, if the intelligence was NOT manipulated, would these same people still want to have remained out of Iraq? I am having difficulty trying to prove a negative here...To put it yet another way...If GOD HIMSELF(well, that won't work)...um, if...You see, it is difficult when repeated investigations have shown no wrongdoing on the part of our President yet some are fused to the concept...Oh, I know!! If WARD CHURCHILL( the lowest possible form of human life)himself says that the Bush admin. did not manipulate anything in order to go into Iraq....Will the same people who are against our involvement there stay with that position? Because that accusation relieves them of any responsibility for their own opinions. And that ain't right.
    The administration has not been fully cooperative or forthcoming with information. Not to mention the intimidation methods like the CIA leak case that is currently being investigated.

  2. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    pwrone for just one second just think about what you said without the motive of slamming liberals. To say that all the evidence was erroneous....[b]is just not realistic or productive. THIS IS THE SAME POINT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE.

    How could the intelligence have been all wrong. Is it possible that a part of the intelligence that was not wrong was not presented or considered?? Was the intelligence completely wrong?? TO SAY THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS ERRONEOUS IS JUST NOT REALISTIC.
    You have lost me...

    Here is my understanding of the position taken by many liberals on the war in Iraq: The President knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction yet insinuated that there were in order to justify invasion.

    My understanding of the facts in evidence: Every single person involved in the intelligence community in the entire world believed that saddam still had his air-borne weapons and was working hard to be able to produce nuclear weapons using the uranium that he had and the centrifuges he had or was building.

    In other words, liberals believe that either A)Bush was the only person privy to the TOP-top-secret(or the top-top-top-top-secret) info that revealed (somehow) that ALL intelligence gathered prior to that meeting was erroneous...or...B) Bush himself parachuted into Iraq and prowled the countryside under cover of darkness until he was satisfied that there were no weapons and that he would be lying when he claimed that there were.

  3. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    You have lost me...

    Here is my understanding of the position taken by many liberals on the war in Iraq: The President knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction yet insinuated that there were in order to justify invasion.

    My understanding of the facts in evidence: Every single person involved in the intelligence community in the entire world believed that saddam still had his air-borne weapons and was working hard to be able to produce nuclear weapons using the uranium that he had and the centrifuges he had or was building.

    In other words, liberals believe that either A)Bush was the only person privy to the TOP-top-secret(or the top-top-top-top-secret) info that revealed (somehow) that ALL intelligence gathered prior to that meeting was erroneous...or...B) Bush himself parachuted into Iraq and prowled the countryside under cover of darkness until he was satisfied that there were no weapons and that he would be lying when he claimed that there were.
    Let me try to clear this up just a bit pwrone. We don't know exactly what Bush knew. We only know what is on the record from him and those in his administration.

    You said...."My understanding of the facts in evidence: Every single person involved in the intelligence community in the entire world believed that saddam still had his air-borne weapons and was working hard to be able to produce nuclear weapons using the uranium that he had and the centrifuges he had or was building." Either this is correct and true or else it is incorrect and false. If it is true, then all the evidence was false. And if all the evidence was false then I say to you that by your own admission, to claim that all the evidence is false is just not realistic or productive. In other words, there is something wrong with this picture. Even you, as a conservative, see this.

    What liberals are saying is that any evidence that was contrary to what the administration was saying was not considered in evaluating the situation. Honestly, do you really believe that this country's intelligence network and every intelligence agency in the entire world, as you worded it, was completely and totally incompetent?

  4. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    Let me try to clear this up just a bit pwrone. We don't know exactly what Bush knew. We only know what is on the record from him and those in his administration.

    You said...."My understanding of the facts in evidence: Every single person involved in the intelligence community in the entire world believed that saddam still had his air-borne weapons and was working hard to be able to produce nuclear weapons using the uranium that he had and the centrifuges he had or was building." Either this is correct and true or else it is incorrect and false. If it is true, then all the evidence was false. And if all the evidence was false then I say to you that by your own admission, to claim that all the evidence is false is just not realistic or productive. In other words, there is something wrong with this picture. Even you, as a conservative, see this.

    What liberals are saying is that any evidence that was contrary to what the administration was saying was not considered in evaluating the situation. Honestly, do you really believe that this country's intelligence network and every intelligence agency in the entire world, as you worded it, was completely and totally incompetent?


    No...this is an easy one! Once you eliminate all of the most ridiculous alternatives, then the far-fetched ones...and so on...you are finally left with what many believe to be the truth: That saddam simply moved and/or hid his weapons.

    But the more important truth is what everyone in America and the world said about the danger posed by him...the same thing down the line. Is it more likely that EVERYONE was wrong or that EVERYONE was right?

  5. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    No...this is an easy one! Once you eliminate all of the most ridiculous alternatives, then the far-fetched ones...and so on...you are finally left with what many believe to be the truth: That saddam simply moved and/or hid his weapons.

    But the more important truth is what everyone in America and the world said about the danger posed by him...the same thing down the line. Is it more likely that EVERYONE was wrong or that EVERYONE was right?
    Pwrone, you won't concede an inch will you?

  6. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    This is the first useful exchange I have had with anyone about this and I appreciate it very much.

    In my not-so-humble but extremely considered opinion....

    This has been turned into a dishonest debate by liberals for political purposes. They want to have their cake and eat it too. That is why they would not vote like adults when asked to. They know that Americans reject their message of "ignore it" in answer to terrorist attacks, yet it is what they believe...which would be okay and provide an alternative political position except---except that they do not want you to KNOW that it is what they believe! They feel that knowing it would keep them from power. Well, shouldn't it keep them from power if it is not what we want?

    Saying that Bush lied about intel gives them an out..."Well, YOU voted for the war"..."only because the president lied to me"..."About what?"..."The intel"..."so...you would NOT have voted to go in if the intel would have been different,right?"...it just goes on and on.

    THE TRUTH: Most Democrats and all liberals would have voted against the war if they were being honest about their beliefs. They are utterly incapable of doing so, and have found a way to get around it--so far. The curious part of all of this is the fact that what they 'believe' NEVER has anything to do with ANY of their on-the-record positions. They have figured out that the things that they ACTUALLY believe in and would like our country to support are abhorrent to most Americans. So they hide them. And create smokescreens like this most cynical and damaging allegation. I think it will prove costly in the long run.

    Though they treat Americans with utter contempt and consider the majority to be stupid and beneath them, somehow Americans almost always see through it. For every carter that somehow slithers through the cracks we come out with a triumphant Reagan.


    And though the preceding is a stunningly effective recitation of the cogent points..LOL...it is not as though, deep down, libs don't understand these truths. They do. They just don't care.

  7. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    And I do not mean any of this as a knock against an anti-war or anti-defense or anti-military position. I have a lot more respect for that than I do for a fake 'hawk' stance. DeeDee has no problem standing up for what she believes...who else will?


    And why in Gods name won't someone say "You know, I wish I had never voted to go into Iraq." "Why, because Bush lied about the intel?" " NO, moron, I just think it would have been better not to go in." You know...take some friggin' responsibility for one's own actions.
    Last edited by pwrone; 11-30-2005 at 06:42 AM.

  8. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    THE TRUTH: Most Democrats and all liberals would have voted against the war if they were being honest about their beliefs. They are utterly incapable of doing so, and have found a way to get around it--so far. The curious part of all of this is the fact that what they 'believe' NEVER has anything to do with ANY of their on-the-record positions. They have figured out that the things that they ACTUALLY believe in and would like our country to support are abhorrent to most Americans. So they hide them. And create smokescreens like this most cynical and damaging allegation. I think it will prove costly in the long run.

    Though they treat Americans with utter contempt and consider the majority to be stupid and beneath them, somehow Americans almost always see through it. For every carter that somehow slithers through the cracks we come out with a triumphant Reagan.


    And though the preceding is a stunningly effective recitation of the cogent points..LOL...it is not as though, deep down, libs don't understand these truths. They do. They just don't care.
    There is the crux of the matter. They ALL lie, right down to every senator, aide, cabinet member and yes, even the president. Politicians are not known for their honesty. And the bulk of them, Republican and Democrat treat Americans with utter contempt, stupid and beneath them. In some ways, I think they are right. Why? Because of how often the American people will not think for themselves and just go along with the program. Politics is one of the biggest scams going and it's been in business since the beginning of time.

    Whether you "drink GOP koolaide" or you "drink liberal koolaide" you are still drinking koolaide. I don't want to lose any more men or women to this war. We are going to, I know, but right now, I just want to see a definitive plan for pulling out. Dates, not smoke screens. Something we can see, identify and hold onto. It doesn't have to be tomorrow, but we should by now be able to have a better idea of an exact time we will have OUR troops back home.

    I think that's what most Americans really want to see.

    Namaste'

    Lady Mod

  9. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    And why in Gods name won't someone say "You know, I wish I had never voted to go into Iraq." "Why, because Bush lied about the intel?" " NO, moron, I just think it would have been better not to go in." You know...take some friggin' responsibility for one's own actions.
    Meet the Press Sunday November 27 2005
    MR. RUSSERT: And yet it's important that we put things in historical context. Senator Biden, you were on the show in August of 2002 talking about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. You concluded your statement by saying, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power." A month later you voted for a resolution authorizing just that. In hindsight, knowing everything you know now about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, was your vote a mistake?

    SEN. BIDEN: It was a mistake. It was a mistake to assume the president would use the authority we gave him properly. And I brought along that whole quote. I knew you'd ask me this. I said, "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There's a real debate on how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years or it's a matter of less than that. We don't know enough now." That was the rest of my quote. So I never argued that there was an imminent threat. We gave the president the authority to unite the world to isolate Saddam. And the fact of the matter is, we went too soon. We went without sufficient force. And we went without a plan.

    MR. RUSSERT: If there was a vote today, you would vote no?

    SEN. BIDEN: I--with this president, absolutely I would vote no, based on the way in which they've handled it.

  10. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    No...this is an easy one! Once you eliminate all of the most ridiculous alternatives, then the far-fetched ones...and so on...you are finally left with what many believe to be the truth: That saddam simply moved and/or hid his weapons.

    But the more important truth is what everyone in America and the world said about the danger posed by him...the same thing down the line. Is it more likely that EVERYONE was wrong or that EVERYONE was right?
    I just wanted to address this. No..it's not that easy! Post war intelligence has shown that Operation Desert Fox destroyed most of the remnants of Saddam's weapons that were left after the first gulf war and that Saddam had not tried to reconstitute his weapon's systems. To say that he moved and hid wmd just doesn't hold water in light of the intelligence. And to say that EVERYONE in the entire world shared the same opinion about the danger posed by Saddam is just out and out not true.

  11. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    This is the first useful exchange I have had with anyone about this and I appreciate it very much.

    In my not-so-humble but extremely considered opinion....

    This has been turned into a dishonest debate by liberals for political purposes. They want to have their cake and eat it too. That is why they would not vote like adults when asked to. They know that Americans reject their message of "ignore it" in answer to terrorist attacks, yet it is what they believe...which would be okay and provide an alternative political position except---except that they do not want you to KNOW that it is what they believe! They feel that knowing it would keep them from power. Well, shouldn't it keep them from power if it is not what we want?

    Saying that Bush lied about intel gives them an out..."Well, YOU voted for the war"..."only because the president lied to me"..."About what?"..."The intel"..."so...you would NOT have voted to go in if the intel would have been different,right?"...it just goes on and on.

    THE TRUTH: Most Democrats and all liberals would have voted against the war if they were being honest about their beliefs. They are utterly incapable of doing so, and have found a way to get around it--so far. The curious part of all of this is the fact that what they 'believe' NEVER has anything to do with ANY of their on-the-record positions. They have figured out that the things that they ACTUALLY believe in and would like our country to support are abhorrent to most Americans. So they hide them. And create smokescreens like this most cynical and damaging allegation. I think it will prove costly in the long run.

    Though they treat Americans with utter contempt and consider the majority to be stupid and beneath them, somehow Americans almost always see through it. For every carter that somehow slithers through the cracks we come out with a triumphant Reagan.


    And though the preceding is a stunningly effective recitation of the cogent points..LOL...it is not as though, deep down, libs don't understand these truths. They do. They just don't care.
    NOBODY VOTED TO GO TO WAR. Congress voted on a resolution that would allow the use of force if "further diplomatic and peaceful means could not adequitely protect the national security of the United States." Even though inspectors were on the ground, even though Saddam correctly claimed that Iraq had no wmd's, even though remaining weapons were being destroyed, even though the rest of the world was trying to find a peaceful solution to the situation, and even though Iraq did not have anything to do with the attack against the United States, George Bush took military action based on intelligence that was totally and completely wrong. Once again in your own words, to say that all the evidence was erroneous is just not realistic.

  12. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    George Bush took military action based on intelligence that was totally and completely wrong. Once again in your own words, to say that all the evidence was erroneous is just not realistic.
    Bairdi the bolded statements are the key, in my opinion.

    We went in based on the intelligence we had at the time. It was the same intelligence that most of the free world had and the same intelligence that every administration before this on based thier decisions on. It is not realistic to think that it was all wrong.

    Hind Sight is always 20/20 and looking back at what we discovered, it can be argued that we made the wrong choice. It is unfortunate that we are not able to push a rewind button and go back to change the way events unfolded, but we can't.

    Your claim that the intelligence was totally and completely wrong is not accurate either. It was not until we began to position troops at the Iraq Border that Saddam began to bring out and dismantle the medium range missles he claimed to not have. We have found parts to enrich uranium, we did find chemical weapons although not in the stockpiles the administration expected. We know that leading up to the war, Saddam was moving trucks out of Iraq and we do not know what was on them.

    Playing armchair politician after the fact makes it pretty easy to say you would have done this or you would have done that. But the information we have now was not available then and a choice had to be made. I often wonder what the arguments from the left would be today had we not gone in and Saddam had released a chemical or biological attack against anyone. I can see the Bush Administration getting raked over the coals for not doing something when they had the chance. Every much like Clinton gets bashed for not taking OSama Bin Laden when he had the chance.

  13. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    Bairdi the bolded statements are the key, in my opinion.

    We went in based on the intelligence we had at the time. It was the same intelligence that most of the free world had and the same intelligence that every administration before this on based thier decisions on. It is not realistic to think that it was all wrong.

    Hind Sight is always 20/20 and looking back at what we discovered, it can be argued that we made the wrong choice. It is unfortunate that we are not able to push a rewind button and go back to change the way events unfolded, but we can't.

    Your claim that the intelligence was totally and completely wrong is not accurate either. It was not until we began to position troops at the Iraq Border that Saddam began to bring out and dismantle the medium range missles he claimed to not have. We have found parts to enrich uranium, we did find chemical weapons although not in the stockpiles the administration expected. We know that leading up to the war, Saddam was moving trucks out of Iraq and we do not know what was on them.

    Playing armchair politician after the fact makes it pretty easy to say you would have done this or you would have done that. But the information we have now was not available then and a choice had to be made. I often wonder what the arguments from the left would be today had we not gone in and Saddam had released a chemical or biological attack against anyone. I can see the Bush Administration getting raked over the coals for not doing something when they had the chance. Every much like Clinton gets bashed for not taking OSama Bin Laden when he had the chance.
    Reg, we went to war based on the intelligence given to us by this administration. It may not be realistic to think that it was it was all wrong, but it was and not according to me but according to the president's own commission, Robb-Silvermann, a report conservatives like to site when it supports their positions. It just makes no sense.

    You say we found chemical weapons but not in the stockpiles that the administration expected, but the report says that "“The ISG found no evidence that Iraq had tried to reconstitute its capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991; no evidence of BW agent stockpiles or of mobile biological weapons production facilities; and no substantial chemical warfare stockpiles or credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW after 1991. Just about the only thing that the Intelligence Community got right was it pre-war conclusion that Iraq had deployed missiles with ranges exceeding United Nations limitations.” Saddam may have had trucks moving out of Iraq but one thing we do know is that they could not have contained wmd's because Iraq did not have them.

    You wonder what what the arguments from the left would be today had we not gone in and Saddam had released a chemical or biological attack against anyone. Well we now know that this would not have happened because Saddam didn't have the capablility to do this. I wonder what would have happened had we allowed the weapons inspections to continue, if we would have worked with the rest of the world to exhaust all options to reach a peaceful solution to the problem instead of a rush to war. Attack was option, but it should have been the final option.

    I realize that this entire discussion is moot, but I just want to hear one conservative on this board admit that maybe there is a possiblity, even though in your minds a very slim one, that maybe all the intelligence was not considered when making a decision to invade. Maybe, just maybe, intelligence that didn't agree with the wmd assessment was either not considered or not presented for whatever reason. Can any of you conservatives concede that? And can any of you concede that maybe, just maybe, we rushed to war against Iraq too quickly?

  14. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    Reg, we went to war based on the intelligence given to us by this administration. It may not be realistic to think that it was it was all wrong, but it was and not according to me but according to the president's own commission, Robb-Silvermann, a report conservatives like to site when it supports their positions. It just makes no sense.
    Conservatives will spin it one way and liberals will spin it another. That is the problem with politics...they spin everything instead of actually letting the people determine for themselves what it means. Now I know it is not resonable to provide raw intel data, which is why we need to be able to read between the lines of what Politicians are telling us.

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    You say we found chemical weapons but not in the stockpiles that the administration expected, but the report says that "�The ISG found no evidence that Iraq had tried to reconstitute its capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991; no evidence of BW agent stockpiles or of mobile biological weapons production facilities; and no substantial chemical warfare stockpiles or credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW after 1991. Just about the only thing that the Intelligence Community got right was it pre-war conclusion that Iraq had deployed missiles with ranges exceeding United Nations limitations.� Saddam may have had trucks moving out of Iraq but one thing we do know is that they could not have contained wmd's because Iraq did not have them.
    It is nice to see you admit the Administration got something right. Bravo!

    No evidence (bolded above) is not the same thing as "It did not exist" until someone puts their spin on it. (see note above)

    Credible indications (bolded above) is a conclusion drawn as to whether the indications are credible or not. Just who determines if the indications are credible or not? And because you may feel they are not credible does not make them so just as the reverse is also true.

    The final bolded statement is an opinion. Because one believe that the indications where not credible or that there was no evidence does not in fact mean the statement is accurate and true. Simply because there are not fingerprints or muder weapons at a crime scene does not mean the victim was not murdered for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    You wonder what what the arguments from the left would be today had we not gone in and Saddam had released a chemical or biological attack against anyone. Well we now know that this would not have happened because Saddam didn't have the capablility to do this.
    Wondering what would have happened doesn't change by the facts as we know them today. Just what would the reaction be to this administration had we taken the other course and the intelligence been proven correct? The Democrats in Congress, and the left wing liberals, would be screaming from every soapbox how they knew we should have gone in and this idiot of a president did nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    I wonder what would have happened had we allowed the weapons inspections to continue, if we would have worked with the rest of the world to exhaust all options to reach a peaceful solution to the problem instead of a rush to war. Attack was option, but it should have been the final option.
    This valid, I often wonder that myself. If you have followed my most recent posts, I have gone so far as to say I would not have taken the same path that this administration chose to take regarding Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    I realize that this entire discussion is moot, but I just want to hear one conservative on this board admit that maybe there is a possiblity, even though in your minds a very slim one, that maybe all the intelligence was not considered when making a decision to invade.
    To think the intelligence may not have been considered is insane. ANd before you get riled up about that statement consider this. Not a single liberal on this board takes that position so why would you even think a conservative would? Both sides agree the intel was considered. we just don't agree on how it was considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    Maybe, just maybe, intelligence that didn't agree with the wmd assessment was either not considered or not presented for whatever reason. Can any of you conservatives concede that? And can any of you concede that maybe, just maybe, we rushed to war against Iraq too quickly?
    This is something that is a possibility. Maybe the intel didn't agree with the WMD assessment that was made by both the Republicans and the Democrats leading up to the war.

    Maybe this country, and many countries around the world, where wearing smoke (or ash) covered glasses and because of that they where unable to evaluate the intel they had been collecting.

    I have said before and I will say it again now, Had I been the President planning the war on terror, things would have likely played out differently. There is a possibility the this President Bush rushed into Iraq sooner then he should have for reasons we likely will never know.

    Presidents are human and they sometimes make mistakes. As with any mistake, sometimes when you try to right it, you create bigger mistakes. The mistake I believe this President made was not necessarily going into Iraq, but rather using WMDs as the big reason why we should. There where many reasons to go into Iraq and finish the Gulf War, he did not need to use the WMDs as the main reason.

    Had this President ordered our troops into Iraq without the support of congress, I would be very vocal about how wrong he was. The fact remains he didn't do that. He went before the American People and before Congress and stated the reasons why he felt it was the right choice. The intel he was working from was not completely different then the Intel every previous President had before him. Congress, especially the Democrats, like to claim they where fooled. That they didn't have the same information as the President. I believe that is a load of crap and a way for them to try to distance themselves from somethig they wis they hadn't done.

    I would like a liberal on this board to admit that the Iraq sistuation is not completely the fault or credit of the Bush administration. That democrats and republicans alike are accountable for the situation. True the President made is case and the Congress agreed with him, but I would like to believe that Congress is not made up of unintelligent individuals who simply go along with the President no matter what he says. I want to believe they do a little researce on issues. That they research it a little more then simply look at polling data to see what the votes seem to want.

    Don't blame the President because he was able to make his case to Congress and the American people. Blame Congress and the American people for allowing something to go unchecked that they do not believe in.

    If John Kerry believed at the time that this war was the wrong thing at the wrong time, he should have made his case instead of simply voting for use of force. If Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, |insert Demorcrat here| felt this was the wrong thing to do then they should have stood up and stated their position. The same thing goes for every Republican as well.

    In 1998 the Clinton Administration got legislation passed that made Regime Change in Iraq our National Policy. In 2002, 296 members of the House voted to authorize use of force to effect the Clinton policy of regime change in Iraq and now in 2005, after all their politically motivated divisive rhetoric on the topic, all the talk about how we need to pull out of Iraq immediately, 403 members of the House voted NOT to pull out of Iraq. Only 3 House Representatives voted to pull out now�

    While you may see this as changing the subject a little, it goes back to my comments on how the right way to sell the war in Iraq was not WMDs. In 2002, 123 house members voted against the use of force in Iraq. In 2005 only 3 voted to pull the troops out immediately. It is safe to assume that these three where also ones that voted against the war in the first place and I personally can respect them for standing firm. What about the other 120? By their vote, it appears they have had a change of heart and do not think this is so bad after all.

    Just something to think about.
    Last edited by RegulationE; 11-30-2005 at 08:09 PM.

  15. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    I believe that the decision was a correct one and the timing was correct. As far as the accuracy of the intel, it does not matter. The important point is that decisions were based on data agreed to, if not by the entire world, at least every important intel organization. Insinuating that the President, and the President alone, had super secret intel all his own is ridiculous. And, once again, what sort of piece of intel could trump 12 years of contrary information? Maybe if there were periodic inspections or something...

    My only real point , then, and the thing that is going to eventually be politically costly for dems, is the disgusting charge that the President lied about what he knew. Not one of these investigations has ever even suggested this, in fact, they have specifically decided there is no merit to it. I will be happy to admit that the intel MAY have been wrong, I am simply saying that there was no real reason to believe that it was wrong. saddam would not let inspections go on unrestricted. That alone is enough to believe the intel.

    Now, I want to hear YOU tell me what you think of these maggots who take no responsibility for their own actions.LOL. The quotes from biden are classic...I KNOW you don't mean to suggest that he is taking responsibility for anything. That interview is a microcosm of the problem. It is as if he knows what is the right thing, but simply cannot bring himself to do it. Just not within him. An illuminating series of quotes highlighting the difficulty they have with things like 'truth' and 'honor'.

  16. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: A Message to this Forum

    All war is based on deception.

    There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.

    Sun Tzu
    Last edited by sojustask; 12-01-2005 at 01:05 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Cameldog MMA forum using forum account member info
    By TheAntiLaw in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-29-2015, 12:55 AM
  2. A message from the Left Forum this weekend
    By cirussell in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 05:17 PM
  3. Monday Message: A Message to Obama‏
    By brucefan in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 09:06 AM
  4. The message is clear, there is no message?
    By Joe Sixpack in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-28-2006, 09:59 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-04-2006, 07:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 2001, a new pearl harbor, access, account, accounts, accuracy, accurate, accusation, action, actions, acts, add, added, address, administration, admit, advance, afford, age, agen, agency, agreed, agrees, aide, airport, allegations, allowed, allowing, als, alternatives, american, angeles, another, answer, answers, anti, apart, appears, arab, arms, art, article, ash, assault, ation, attacked, attacking, attacks, attempt, attending, attention, attitude, august, author, authority, authorized, automatic, avoid, away, awesome, back, bad, baghdad, banking, banned, based, bat, bear, beautiful, best, bet, better, bible, bigger, biggest, bin, birthday, bit, blame, blatant, blew, blood, body, book, books, border, borders, borne, boy, bravo, break, breakdown, breaks, bring, building, businesses, bust, button, cabinet, cake, call, called, calls, campaign, camps, cannot, capabilities, care, carefully, case, catch, caught, caused, center, cer, chain, chairman, chance, che, checking, cheney, choice, chris, christia, christian, christians, citizens, civil, claim, claims, classic, cli, clinto, colin, com, coming, comments, commit, common, community, complete, completely, complex, con, connection, consequences, conservative, conservatives, constantly, context, continue, continues, contributed, cooperation, core, corp, corporate, correct, costly, couldn, countries, country, cover, crap, credible, credit, crowd, cruel, crying, culture, customer, customer., dark, darkness, daughter, david, day, dea, dead, death, debates, decided, decision, deep, defend, democrats, dems, dental, department, des, desert, deserve, deserving, desire, destroyed, destruction, development, dick, didn, differences, different, differently, difficult, ding, diploma, diplomatic, direct, director, disgusting, doc, doesn, don, dont, don’t, dow, drink, due, dying, ear, early, earth, east, economic, eed, effect, effective, effects, elaborate, elected, eliminate, elliot, eme, empire, ended, enemy, entire, error, essential, european, event, excellent, expose, express, extraordinary, extremely, eye, face, failed, fair, faith, fall, false, familiar, families, famous, fat, father, fault, favor, fear, feel, feeling, felt, final, financial, find, fla, flat, flaw, focus, folks, fooled, forces, forensic, forever, forget, forgot, forum, forward, fox, fra, fully, future, gain, gave, gen, george, george h.w. bush, george w. bush, giants, gingrich, goal, god, good, goose, gotta, great, greatest, green, ground, group, groups, grow, guess, gullible, guys, had, hand, handed, handle, hands, happen, happened, happening, happiness, harbor, hard, harder, head, heads, hear, heard, heart, heaven, hell, help, helped, helping, hey, hide, higher, him, his, holding, holy, honor, hose, hotel, hours, house, huge, huma, human, hurt, hussein, ial, ian, iced, identify, idiot, ignore, ignored, ile, ill, imagine, imams, ime, immigration, imminent, important, inch, incompetent, index, individuals, infinite, info, information, intelligence, interview, invade, investigated, investigations, investments, invited, involved, ion, islamic, isn, issues, jesus, jet, joe, john, john kerry, joined, jordan, joy, judge, just, justify, kennedy, kerry, killed, kind, kinder, king, knew, knock, kristol, laden, land, large, last, laugh, laughing, launch, launched, lead, leaders, leading, leak, les, letter, letters, lexx, liberals, lied, light, likes, limited, line, lines, lis, listen, lived, living, lol, long, long run, lord, los, loses, losing, loss, lot, love, lovers, lying, main, make, makes, making, mantra, many, mass, matter, mea, meaning, meaningless, medical, meeting, member, members, memory, men, mention, message, mile, mind, ministers, minutes, model, moment, monger, month, mor, more, moron, mortgage, mother, mount, move, movemen, movement, multiple, muscle, nam, named, nation, national, national security, nations, nature, need, needed, nego, network, nice, nigh, night, north, norway, note, november, now, nuclear, numbers, odd, office, officials, ones, only, onto, open, operation, opposite, options, order, ordered, orders, org, organization, original, overthrow, owner, owns, pakistan, par, part, party, pas, passage, passed, passenger, paul, peaceful, pentagon, perle, permission, persecute, persia, person, personally, picture, piece, place, planes, planned, planning, plans, play, played, playing, point, policies, policy, politically, politician, pos, position, post, posted, posters, posting, posts, powell, power, pray, prepared, presentations, preservation, presiden, pretty, prior, pro, problem, production, productive, profit, program, protect, protected, protecting, protection, protects, prove, proven, public, public opinion, pull, pursuit, push, putting, question, questions, quick, quote, quotes, rage, rally, rated, raw, reaction, read, ready, reagan, real, real reason, reason, reasons, receiving, recorded, red, regarding, regime, released, religious, remains, remember, removal, ren, rendered, rent, represent, research, respect, respond, response, responsible, rest, results, returning, revenge, richard, rid, ridiculous, rio, rise, risk, roll, rump, run, rush, rushed, safe, san, satisfied, scam, scientific, scum, secretary, secure, seem, sell, selling, sen, senate, send, sends, sense, sept, september, service, shared, shed, sho, shock, short, shot, shouldn, shows, shut, side, sides, signing, simple, simply, site, slamming, slim, smart, smoke, soft, soldiers, solve, sometimes, son, soo, sooner, speaker, spears, special, specifically, speeches, spring, standard, star, start, state, state department, stated, states, stay, stood, stop, stories, story, stream, street, strength, stupid, subs, succeeded, successful, such, sue, suicide, sul, sun, sunday, super, supply, supported, supports, suppose, surge, sweden, sympathy, systems, tactics, take, taken, takes, taking, tal, taliban, talk, talking, targeting, targets, ted, terror, terrorist, tex, text, themselves, theory, they, thing, thought, thread, threatened, threatening, throw, time, times, timing, title, today, told, tolerance, tomorrow, ton, top, tot, totally, towers, track, trade, tre, treated, tries, troops, troubles, turkey, turned, unauthorized, unfortunate, uni, union, united, united states, unlimited, upset, uranium, url, user, usual, ven, view, vince, vital, voted, votes, voting, wanted, war, ward, warfare, wars, watched, watching, water, ways, weak, wearing, week, welcome, west, wome, won, worked, worker, working, worse, worst, worth, write, wrong, years, your, zero

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •