Quote:LOL, I like that.

Glad you find the truth so entertaining. Too bad not much of it can be found in your posts.

Quote:Bush said in these quotes and others that Saddam had long been in contact and in association with al Queda, gave them $$ and training and safe harbor... years BEFORE 9/11.   If Saddam was supposedly buidling up and helping al Queda prior to 9/11 - - isn't the entire point that Saddam was one of the guilty parties in 9/11? 

The neo-cons have tried to tie Saddam to 9/11 and al Queda at every step of the way.

No, it isn't. If it were Bush would have said, "Saddam is culpable for 9/11" He has never made that claim. You, however, while posting direct evidence to the contrary, continue to claim that he has. That's pretty sad.

The fact is this is yet another lie and distortion liberals like to throw out. YOu talk about conservatives saying 1+1=3. I find the hypocricy in that assertion laughable. Your hatred for Bush is so consuming and so dibilitating you grasp at any lie, make up any distortion to fuel that hate. It's Rather pathetic (pun intended).

Fact, you said Bush stated Saddam's aiding of terrorists led to 9/11.
Fact, Bush never made that claim, and the comments YOU posted show that to be the case.
Fact, you continue to make the assertion even after your own words contradict you.

I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you.

Your lies don't hold water here bub, you'd be wise to abandon them. That is unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself.

If that's the case, by all means keep at it. You're doing a great job.

But let's be clear. Your original statement is patently false, you know it, your own comments prove it. You're not intellectually honest enough to abandon it, despite facts to the contrary.

You're no differnent than any other liberal that comes on here.

Next.

LAWD have mercy. :drink:

If you're not going to believe something that's clear to be seen right in front of your face, be my guest. You're not the only one - look at the polls.

It's frightening and disturbing to me how the neo-cons have hi-jacked the GOP and turned it into something that it never has been, and WASN'T when Bush was elected. And they've hoodwinked so many people....

But one this is for certain: If I were ever a candidate, I would want Karl Rove running it. If he can get George W. Bush elected to the White House twice (well... sorta....), then he can elect anybody.

Bush clearly tied Iraq to 9/11. But frankly - the invasion makes even LESS sense if Iraq is NOT tied to 9/11. Not that it's possible for it to make any less sense than it already does.

You're no differnent than any other liberal that comes on here.

Well, I would certainly hope I would be no, er, differnent than any other liberal that comes on here. There have to be a few people in this country who aren't blinded by the neo-cons and their lies.

Too bad it looks like there will be too few to save the election in November, and THAT is what frightens me more than anything. But there's still hope, it's not over.

Quote:If you're not going to believe something that's clear to be seen right in front of your face, be my guest.   You're not the only one - look at the polls.

Here in lies the problem. I BELIEVE what's right in front of my face. And what is right in front of my face, and put there by YOU, is that Bush NEVER claimed Saddam's support of terrorists <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>LED</span> to 9/11.

That is the claim you made. It is wrong, it is a lie, and it's clear you lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Quote:But one this is for certain:  If I were ever a candidate, I would want Karl Rove running it.   If he can get George W. Bush elected to the White House twice (well... sorta....), then he can elect anybody.

The complete idiocy behind that statement isn't even worth responding to.

I've got news for you, not even Karl Rove could get someone like you elected.

Quote:Bush clearly tied Iraq to 9/11.   But frankly - the invasion makes even LESS sense if Iraq is NOT tied to 9/11.    Not that it's possible for it to make any less sense than it already does.

This is why you just don't get it. 9/11 is tied to Iraq IN AS MUCH AS 9/11 changed the way we have to deal with gathering threats. It is part of the war on terror. That is the claim Bush has always made. However you and your ilk choose say that making that connection means Bush claimed Saddam was part, or led(remember your words) to 9/11. No such claim was ever made. And the more you repeat it the further you sink into the lowest common denominator of partisanship.

Quote:Well, I would certainly hope I would be no, er, differnent than any other liberal that comes on here.   There have to be a few people in this country who aren't blinded by the neo-cons and their lies.

1) Cite any "neo-con" lies
2) You're blinded by hate and the lies that flow from that hate. You'll embrace any lie about Bush you can, and you'll advance any lie you can.

Quote:Too bad it looks like there will be too few to save the election in November, and THAT is what frightens me more than anything.   But there's still hope, it's not over.

Canada's just a plane ride away. I'll be happy to help you pack.

You're blinded by hate and the lies that flow from that hate. You'll embrace any lie about Bush you can, and you'll advance any lie you can.

You don't know anything about me. I am not the one seeing the world through the dim view of neo-conservatism. Your statement about "well, if you don't like it, move to Canada is a perfect example of this view." Our way or the highway. That's what Bush has told the rest of the world. I give facts, you state that its just liberal idiocy. Whatever, pal. Nice chatting with ya.

So by your response we can conclude that:

1) You can produce no evidence that Bush ever claimed Saddam's support of terrorists led to 9/11.
2) You can produce no evidence of "neo-con" lies

Like I said two posts ago. Checkmate.

Quote:You don't know anything about me. I am not the one seeing the world through the dim view of neo-conservatism.

No, you see it through the moronic view of liberal hate.

So far what I know of you is that you advance the lie that Bush stated Saddam's support of terrorists led to 9/11, you'll claim "neo-con" lies have blinded people in this country yet you can produce no evidence of such lies.

What that tells me about you is that you will advance a lie, see above, to bash Bush and you'll make fallicious statements but won't back them up with evidence. That tells me all I need to know about your worldview and confirms my belief you'll advance lies in order to hurt Bush.

Quote:Your statement about "well, if you don't like it, move to Canada is a perfect example of this view." Our way or the highway.

YOu stated that Bush's reelection "frightend you more than anything". I merely offered you an easy way to dispel that fear. Move to Canada.

Quote:I give facts, you state that its just liberal idiocy.

:laugh:

You stated as FACT that Bush claimed Saddam's support of terrorists <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>LED</span> to 9/11. You then posted quotes from Bush, none of which make that claim. You then say the quotes, that don't substantiate your claim, substantiate your claim. Such statements are based on one of two things, idiocy or schizophrenia. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that you have refused to answer my refutation of your original claim shows that you, in FACT, know I'm right and are trying to avoid admitting such. That's fine. It says more about you and your ability to debate than anything else and is an indication that more of the same is what we can expect from you in the future.

Quote:Whatever, pal. Nice chatting with ya.

That's funny. I've never met many people who would label a conversation where they got their arse handed to them "nice". But there's a first time for everything I guess.
:laugh:

wvucrazed Wrote:

jjburtzel Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:9/11 did not change anything about the realities in Iraq, or the validity of Bush's statement because, as we all know (and some don't want to admit), Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush Sr. has never once come out in support of Jr's war in Iraq.  He hasn't condemned it because he doesn't want to undermine his son, but he does not support it.  When asked specifically about whether or not he approves, his answer has been "no comment".   

As Roberto Gato posted, Saddam was far less of a threat when we invaded than when the elder Bush made the statements in his book.

9/11 did change the world and our relationship to it. For us to act otherwise would be foolish.

The point libs always miss with this: IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH UN RESOLUTIONS, HE WOULD STILL BE TORTURING HIS PEOPLE TODAY AND LIBS WOULD BE HAPPY.

It always amazes me that many libs want to point to UN involvment as the answer to all Iraq's problems when all the UN does is make toothless resolutions they never intend to enforce. Essentially the way I see this is the UN had their opportunity to make Saddam comply, they didn't (they just needed more time! :rolleyes: ), so the ball was out of their court, especially if they were unwilling to make Saddam comply. The fact that he didn't have what we (and the Brits) thoughT he had is a side issue for me...if he just would have complied there never would have been a problem.

So now people drag out a 5 year old quote to prove that W's Dad doesn't support the current action. Well, that's applicable.

who has pointed to UN involvement as the answer to all our problems in Iraq? Certainly not me.

The US has never in its history had a policy of "pre-emption" - NEVER. What Bush did in Iraq is unprecedented in American history, pure and simple.

The neo-cons have this notion that it is somehow our duty as the world's superpower to spread our democratic ideals throughout the world, by force of military might if necessary. Would Saddam have loved to bring the US down? You betcha. Would he have dared lift a finger against the US, or Israel for that matter? NO. The reason? We would disassemble Iraq down to its foundation. Saddam was no threat. Iran is a much greater threat - why aren't we marching into Tehran right now?

Ahh... but Iran is quite a different story. Iraq was like a plum ready to be picked, and Bush had his eye on it from day 1 in office. The neo-cons think that a stable, democratic Iraq will lead to Syria, Iran and others throwing down their swords and embracing coca-cola and blue jeans. Well guess what folks - that will never happen. The same argument was made in SE Asia when we went into Vietnam, that communism would spread across the region if we didn't stop it. Well guess what - it hasn't.


We are now presiding over a dangerous 3rd world mess with more and more american dead every day, and no end in sight, with 3 factions that have no interest in an American-puppet central government.

What am I missing here? We didn't invade Iraq to punish the terrorists for 9/11, cause they didn't have anything to do with it. We didn't pre-emp ANYTHING. We've severely damaged our standing in the world, cost 1000 american lives and counting, and untold billions of dollars.

For what?

Who said anything about UN involvement in Iraq? The dem candidate for president, that's who.

And who said anything about a 'policy of pre-emption'? The idea is simple if you follow it: We had to kick Saddam out of Kuwait...the outfall of not taking him from power after Desert Storm was that Saddam couldn't possess any of those nasty little weapons that could cause problems for us or any of his neighbors, and he had to let people come take a look to make sure he wan't producing any more and getting rid of what he had. As time went on he became more and more resistent to inspections...why? Doesn't matter to me. Meanwhile 9/11 happens, shifting policy of the US to less reactionary (because terrorist are unlike any enemy we've faced before) and more proactive towards terrorists or nations that keep terrorists. Meanwhile, Saddam continues to thumb his nose at inspections. So the UN does the brave thing and...passes another resolution (at our prodding) saying he really better let inspectors come in or somebody is going to do something about it. He doesn't bother. He's not in compliance with inspections (which means he may be producing WMDs) and he gives terrorist a place to hide. Invading for the terrorists things isn't good enough by the world standard (but who really cares what they think...they didn't have 3 planes crash into buildings killing thousands of people, did they?), but thumbing his nose at inspections certainly should have been.

And what was the UN's response? "We didn't think you'd actually do it!" :rolleyes:

In many states (I'm not sure how much this is applicable nation-wide), if you are suspected of driving under the influence and you refuse to take a sobriety test and/or breathilizer, you have essentially plead guilty to a DUI.

Seems to me that if you agreed to a rule (say, weapons inspections), and you refuse to comply with that rule that it's a reasonable conclusion to say that you are telling us you are not in compliance and are, therefore, breaking the rule. What's the punishment? Nothing? Then why make the rule?

jjburtzel Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:

jjburtzel Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:9/11 did not change anything about the realities in Iraq, or the validity of Bush's statement because, as we all know (and some don't want to admit), Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush Sr. has never once come out in support of Jr's war in Iraq.  He hasn't condemned it because he doesn't want to undermine his son, but he does not support it.  When asked specifically about whether or not he approves, his answer has been "no comment".   

As Roberto Gato posted, Saddam was far less of a threat when we invaded than when the elder Bush made the statements in his book.

9/11 did change the world and our relationship to it. For us to act otherwise would be foolish.

The point libs always miss with this: IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH UN RESOLUTIONS, HE WOULD STILL BE TORTURING HIS PEOPLE TODAY AND LIBS WOULD BE HAPPY.

It always amazes me that many libs want to point to UN involvment as the answer to all Iraq's problems when all the UN does is make toothless resolutions they never intend to enforce. Essentially the way I see this is the UN had their opportunity to make Saddam comply, they didn't (they just needed more time! :rolleyes: ), so the ball was out of their court, especially if they were unwilling to make Saddam comply. The fact that he didn't have what we (and the Brits) thoughT he had is a side issue for me...if he just would have complied there never would have been a problem.

So now people drag out a 5 year old quote to prove that W's Dad doesn't support the current action. Well, that's applicable.

who has pointed to UN involvement as the answer to all our problems in Iraq? Certainly not me.

The US has never in its history had a policy of "pre-emption" - NEVER. What Bush did in Iraq is unprecedented in American history, pure and simple.

The neo-cons have this notion that it is somehow our duty as the world's superpower to spread our democratic ideals throughout the world, by force of military might if necessary. Would Saddam have loved to bring the US down? You betcha. Would he have dared lift a finger against the US, or Israel for that matter? NO. The reason? We would disassemble Iraq down to its foundation. Saddam was no threat. Iran is a much greater threat - why aren't we marching into Tehran right now?

Ahh... but Iran is quite a different story. Iraq was like a plum ready to be picked, and Bush had his eye on it from day 1 in office. The neo-cons think that a stable, democratic Iraq will lead to Syria, Iran and others throwing down their swords and embracing coca-cola and blue jeans. Well guess what folks - that will never happen. The same argument was made in SE Asia when we went into Vietnam, that communism would spread across the region if we didn't stop it. Well guess what - it hasn't.


We are now presiding over a dangerous 3rd world mess with more and more american dead every day, and no end in sight, with 3 factions that have no interest in an American-puppet central government.

What am I missing here? We didn't invade Iraq to punish the terrorists for 9/11, cause they didn't have anything to do with it. We didn't pre-emp ANYTHING. We've severely damaged our standing in the world, cost 1000 american lives and counting, and untold billions of dollars.

For what?

Who said anything about UN involvement in Iraq? The dem candidate for president, that's who.

And who said anything about a 'policy of pre-emption'? The idea is simple if you follow it: We had to kick Saddam out of Kuwait...the outfall of not taking him from power after Desert Storm was that Saddam couldn't possess any of those nasty little weapons that could cause problems for us or any of his neighbors, and he had to let people come take a look to make sure he wan't producing any more and getting rid of what he had. As time went on he became more and more resistent to inspections...why? Doesn't matter to me. Meanwhile 9/11 happens, shifting policy of the US to less reactionary (because terrorist are unlike any enemy we've faced before) and more proactive towards terrorists or nations that keep terrorists. Meanwhile, Saddam continues to thumb his nose at inspections. So the UN does the brave thing and...passes another resolution (at our prodding) saying he really better let inspectors come in or somebody is going to do something about it. He doesn't bother. He's not in compliance with inspections (which means he may be producing WMDs) and he gives terrorist a place to hide. Invading for the terrorists things isn't good enough by the world standard (but who really cares what they think...they didn't have 3 planes crash into buildings killing thousands of people, did they?), but thumbing his nose at inspections certainly should have been.

And what was the UN's response? "We didn't think you'd actually do it!" :rolleyes:

In many states (I'm not sure how much this is applicable nation-wide), if you are suspected of driving under the influence and you refuse to take a sobriety test and/or breathilizer, you have essentially plead guilty to a DUI.

Seems to me that if you agreed to a rule (say, weapons inspections), and you refuse to comply with that rule that it's a reasonable conclusion to say that you are telling us you are not in compliance and are, therefore, breaking the rule. What's the punishment? Nothing? Then why make the rule?

UN involvment - sure. UN the answer to all our problems? No, of course not.

Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN by playing w/ the inspectors, but it was simply bravado to save face against the West. There was nothing there to hide!

So... the answer to those who break treaties is: declare war? I understand and agree with your point that the UN resolutions had to be backed up, or they were toothless. We could have kept the pressure on Saddam and Iraq without going in full throttle with ground troops. We could have done it in a way that carried broader international support.

But, frankly: Iraq was not the hot issue. Who cares if Saddam was playing tough guy with the UN? The reality is that he had no capacity to DO ANYTHING to ANYONE, nor was he likely to do so. All he wanted to do was lounge around his palaces and continue to rule and rob his people, and bluster occassionally in the general direction of the West. We had much more pressing concerns: al Queda.


You have to look at the CONSEQUENCES of our action in Iraq. What have we accomplished? Nothing but alot of chaos and pain, for no good reason.

WVU, you base ALL of your statements on what we know now, not then. ANYONE can be a Monday Morning QB. Your point is negated.

RebelKev Wrote:WVU, you base ALL of your statements on what we know now, not then. ANYONE can be a Monday Morning QB. Your point is negated.

what we knew THEN is very much open to interpretation. Some argue that Bush was determine to take down Iraq, and he disregarded intelligence that contradicted his view that Iraq was an imminent threat.

wvucrazed Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:WVU, you base ALL of your statements on what we know now, not then. ANYONE can be a Monday Morning QB. Your point is negated.

what we knew THEN is very much open to interpretation. Some argue that Bush was determine to take down Iraq, and he disregarded intelligence that contradicted his view that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Okay, shall I show you NUMEROUS quotes from top Democrats, Kerry included, and documents that stated Saddam WAS a threat? If I, and the Georgia Lottery Commission, used YOUR logic, I'd be a millionaire. You, AND the Dems, can't refute this.

BTW, what's Kerry's position on the war in Iraq going to be tomorrow? I lose track.

wvucrazed Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:WVU, you base ALL of your statements on what we know now, not then. ANYONE can be a Monday Morning QB. Your point is negated.

what we knew THEN is very much open to interpretation. Some argue that Bush was determine to take down Iraq, and he disregarded intelligence that contradicted his view that Iraq was an imminent threat.

wvu, I feel like we're debating in circles. It does not matter to me what reasons Saddam didn't allow inspectors in (whether it be false bravado or he was hiding true weapons production or he was planning a campaign in which he would hide golden tickets in chocolate bars so that 5 lucky inspectors would be allowed in his secrect WMD factory, etc) or what we believed he actually had in his current stockpile. He was to allow inspecters open access, period. As I have noticed alot lately, we want to blame the people enforcing the rules as apposed to the guy who broke them.

If you want to argue what the proper response should have been...well, I'm not sure how you do that, because Saddam always survived regardless of what he have done only to return to business as usual. Clinton launched some missles at his aspirin factory, and that didn't seem to deter him from later telling the UN to kiss-off. What's the answer...sanctions? More missle strikes from afar? It would have just kept him in power and given him more 'cred' with his neighbors for screwing with the great Satan and surviving, again.

Quote:QUOTE
All he did in Iraq, however, was create more fervent anti-American sentiment that we will be dealing with for decades to come.


This is one of the more hilarious arguments liberals make. It ranks right up there with we can't go to war without the French. The argument that we can't protect ourselves because we might make other people hate us is laughable.

I've got news for you. anti-American sentiment was fervent long before we ever went into Iraq.

Tell that to the Army Captain they interviewed on the evening news tonight. Tell him how hilarious that argument is. He's been there from the beginning. He said when he first got there, they could walk down the very street he was standing on. Little children would hold his hands. Now they're being shot at and bombed, kids are throwing rocks. We turned a bad situation into a nightmare, both for ourselves and the Iraqis, by not preparing properly. Whether you support the war in Iraq or not doesn't matter to me. We won a swift and decisive battle to oust Sadam. What we didn't do was plan properly for other contingencies, and now we're stuck and so are the Iraqis.

I agree, Karl.

Bush (or whoever it was) had a very strong military strategy for the "war". However, did any of them ever think what the immediate implications would involve? Urban warfare? It's not worth losing 3 or 4 good, young, Americans.