Why Bush Should be Impeached

[cattyfan]

Let's see what happens in Novemeber 2006.


Well, the democrats will run a ticket with ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and they will lose, receiving the flat-out smack-down they deserve.

[aikido7]

It is though, isn't it? You can actually KNOW how many people were killed, you can look to alternative places for information, and you can actually SAY what you want without been shot dead.

I may not agree with the war, or with the administration, but you won't hear me say that the country isn't good.

The last time I checked, the US Congress Authorized the use of military force in Iraq. You know, the Senate and the House... the people you and the rest of America voted for. It's not just the President you seem so eager to deface. If you don't like their decisions, then don't put them in again. What's funny is that America voted Bush in AGAIN!

I don't disagree with everything you say... but I don't agree either. Keep up the alternate viewpoints though, lets us all know that this country really IS great!Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows.

Anyone who challenges your beliefs is not defacing America. These are people who are still allowed to entertain doubt, arising from awareness and common sense.

In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers took what is universal in the human heart and brought it to bear on the formation of a new nation among the powers of the earth. A sense of pride in God's creation is not "nation-specific." It springs from the song of every human heart. Our country's Declaration of Independence is universal--it touches a part of all of us. Not just Americans, but people worldwide.

I can't answer the following questions. They're between you and the rag-and-bone shop of your deepest human heart, if you wish to entertain them.

Is there REALLY a difference between supporting the country you love and hating the sins of your country? Can a child still love his father who is a criminal? A drug addict? An unwise parent? Are the citizens who stood up against George Bush and America's certain quagmire-to-be unpatriotic? Are the citizens, military generals, soldiers and members of congress who have changed their opinion in the last three years allowed to do so without becoming unpatriotic? If "rocking the boat," following the truth wherever it may lead and criticism and dissent are still to be considered a necessary and hard-fought privelege in America, why is there such an outcry when good citizens disagree with their country?

We hold and hoard our little illusions around us like members of our own little family of truth. As I write this I am reminded of Jesus' fierce attacks on family values. We are continually being called to join another family--a wider and more open family which exists beyond our parochial view of reality. And sometimes we have to be dragged kicking and screaming into that light.

The collective hue, cry, mockery and judgement on this forum by those who would refuse others their address of grievance, criticism or questions hide a facist agenda--whether political or religious. A lot of Americans (not to mention people in other nations) are starting to belatedly and alarmingly realize some common ground:

There is no difference between a goverment of democracy and a goverment of repression except that democracies pay lip service to dissent and overtly repressive governments forbid it. But in the end, both types of government do what they want and what they can get away with....

[Jukia]

Well, the democrats will run a ticket with ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and they will lose, receiving the flat-out smack-down they deserve.
Well we will just have to wait and see. That's why they play the game.

[aikido7]

Originally Posted by cattyfan:

Well, the democrats will run a ticket with ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and they will lose, receiving the flat-out smack-down they deserve.

Well we will just have to wait and see. That's why they play the gameIt's not a game. Two plus two still equals four. And that goes for 2006. Not 2008.

[Morpheus]

In reality the majority who subscribe to this forum have become quite proficient in doublespeak. If tomorrow Big Brother, (oops), Bush, said that Osama Bin Laden is now our ally and that we are in a war with Chile for their newly discovered atrocities, these followers might question it for a few days, but after hearing it repeated over and over they would surely soon believe that that is the way it had always been. Sheep aren't easy to train, but they are easy to lead.

[On Fire]

What's it like on your home planet, Dorkeous?

[Morpheus]

What's it like on your home planet, Dorkeous?I am surrounded by mindless blind monsters with huge useless mouths. They seem oblivious to their surroundings, but are extremely dangerous since they wobble about continuously crashing into things. They are herded by other more vicious creatures who use them to crush their enemies. The herders are responsible for keeping the monsters fed; but that is easy since the beasts are satisfied being fed on the herders crap. They simply smile appreciatively with their huge mouths and continue to follow, hoping for more of the same. It is a dangerous place and I anticipate that it will soon become a desolate wasteland. Those of us who can see and think at least have the hope of excaping this place and returning to our homeland. You see, we are just travellers here; this is not our home.

[On Fire]

Those of us who can see and think at least have the hope of excaping this place and returning to our homeland.
Escaping, maybe. Spelling, not so much.

You see, we are just travellers here; this is not our home.
Oh, so you'll be heading back to Cuba soon, eh?

[Skeptic]

Looks like a just war to me:

1. Just cause: Stopping the massacre of a large number of people or the systematic long-term violation of human rights of life liberty and community is a just cause. There was no on-going massacre of a large number of people in the years leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion. Saddam's atrocities happened in the late 1980s. Therefore, there was no massacre to stop and Saddam was unlikely to engage in any massacre while he was boxed in, with UN inspectors on the ground, and with the U.S. and international community closely monitoring him 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. There were regular U.S. bombings of Iraq in the months leading up to Bush's official invasion of Iraq. If Saddam had been committing any ongoing massacres during that time, we would have known about it.

There are several countries that have systematically violated human rights for many years, but this does not justify invading such countries, killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

2. Just authority: All of the necessary authorities that have the right to speak into such an action must approve it, and this approval must come without coercion or deceit. A vast majority of nations, as well as the population of the planet, did NOT approve of Bush's unnecessary invasion. There is plenty of good reasons to strongly suspect that the U.S. Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion DID involve coercion and deceit!

3. Last Resort: All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention have to have been exhausted. All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted!!

4. Just intensions: The intended final outcome must be to secure a just peace. There are good reasons to suspect that Bush & Co's intentions were NOT simply to "secure a just peace."

5. Probability of Success: It is wrong to enter a war that will likely kill many people if there is no certainty that the probability of success is very high. Exactly one of my points! There WAS no certainty that the probability of success was high! As we can see from our current quagmire in Iraq, "success" is a long way off. So much for "Mission Accomplished."

6. Proportionality of costs: “proportionality requires that the total good achieved by victory will outweigh the total evil and suffering the war will cause.” No one should prescribe a cure that is worse than the disease. Exactly one of my points! Just before Bush's invasion, there was no evil or suffering in Iraq that was so great that it warranted a proportionately massive military invasion that everyone knew would necessarily result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. This is not to say that Saddam was not a brutal dictator who needed to be removed from power, or that no people suffered under his regime. But, in the months leading up to Bush's invasion, the magnitude of Saddam's brutality and resulting suffering did NOT warrant a massive military invasion that everyone knew would necessarily result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

If the alleged WMD threat from Iraq had not been an issue, NO member of Congress would have approved of Bush's invasion merely to overthrow a brutal dictator and reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people!

7. Clear announcement: There must be a clear announcement of a government’s intensions to make war. The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun. (source (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0602-25.htm))

So much for "a clear announcement of a government’s intensions to make war."

8. The war must be fought by just means: The warring country will not purposefully inflict great casualties on innocent civilians and will not use means that aren’t proportional to the fighting. To say that Iraq's military was NO MATCH for U.S. and British forces is a massive understatement! We had been bombing the hell out of Iraq for the past several years before Bush's unnecessary invasion! Anyone who thought that thousands of innocent civilians would not be killed during Bush's invasion must have been on major mind-numbing drugs!

"Fought by just means" my @ss!!

[On Fire]

There are none so blind as those who wear rags over their eyes.

[Skeptic]

There are none so blind as those who wear rags over their eyes. Why don't you remove those right-wing rags from your eyes?

[Morpheus]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

Why don't you remove those right-wing rags from your eyes?

Don't just love seeing how blatantly racist the evangelical right is?

[aikido7]

Looks like a just war to me...Are you aware, On Fire, that the doctrine of "just war" was a creation of Augustine?

Are you further aware that its expression and development came out of the historical fact that the Roman Emperor Constantine came to realize "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and conveninetly converted to the new faith called "Christianity"?

Do you further realize that Constantine later saw fit to pour molted lead down the throat of a relative because he felt betrayed by some family/political treachery?

Do you not see that when empire and Jesus fall into bed with each other, control, domination and expansion then need to be justified?

That there must be "fixing of the facts" to support an actual gospel-based myth of violence being necessary and redemptive?

I think when Jesus said "love your enemy" he was not saying anything about hurting others. You are certainly welcome to parse Jesus' words to actually mean "love your enemy unless there is a justifiable reason to kill him."

But that would be hypocritical, morally wrong and UNCHRISTIAN.

Wouldn't it, On Fire?

[7cworldwide]

Don't just love seeing how blatantly racist the evangelical right is?

For the record, I am a white, evangelical, right-winger and I am absolutely NOT a racist. My wife isn't even white.

:hammer:

What a useless thread this is...

[Skeptic]

What a useless thread this is... As long as there is a possibility that someone can be persuaded by the evidence that Bush misled Congress and the American people about the alleged threat Iraq posed before he invaded, then this thread serves a purpose.

Bush will not likely be impeached.

But this does not mean he shouldn't be impeached.

[Delmar]

For the record, I am a white, evangelical, right-winger and I am absolutely NOT a racist. My wife isn't even white.

:hammer:

What a useless thread this is...

I doubt he will accept that as evidence.

[Skeptic]

I doubt he will accept that as evidence. Could evidence ever convince you that Bush misled Congress and the American people about the alleged WMD threat Iraq posed?

[Delmar]

Could evidence ever convince you that Bush misled Congress and the American people about the alleged WMD threat Iraq posed?

Yes, but I doubt if I could be convinced that taking out Saddam was a bad thing.

[Lovejoy]

Don't just love seeing how blatantly racist the evangelical right is?
Universal statements condemning a group you cannot possibly know every member of? What is that an example of, I wonder?

[aikido7]

Universal statements condemning a group you cannot possibly know every member of? What is that an example of, I wonder?An example of a generalization, I imagine.

Perhaps its meaning might hit home to you if it were instead phrased as "Don't you just love seeing how blatantly racist (generally speaking) the evangelical right is?"

What do you think, Lovejoy?

[Crow]

Don't just love seeing how blatantly racist the evangelical right is?

One more insinuation that a member or a general portion of the membership here is racist without just cause, and you will be looking for another message board to troll.

[aikido7]

One more insinuation that a member or a general portion of the membership here is racist without just cause, and you will be looking for another message board to troll.Good. Now we can all get back to watching TV....











I wonder who's the latest missing white woman this week?

[Crow]

Good. Now we can all get back to watching TV.....

Whatever floats your boat.

[Lovejoy]

An example of a generalization, I imagine.

Perhaps its meaning might hit home to you if it were instead phrased as "Don't you just love seeing how blatantly racist (generally speaking) the evangelical right is?"

What do you think, Lovejoy?
The statement would be on stronger ground, for sure, though I would still not be convinced of its accuracy. The fact is, its current wording leaves the poster with nothing to stand on, as generalizations are too instrinsic to all forms of bias and bigotry. I do accept that there are racists in the chruch, and that some denominations claiming conservative and evangelical affiliations are built on racism. But not all, or even most. My church (which is quite large) is both conservative and evangelical, and we have Hispanic and Korean services, an Ethiopian missionary and pastor, etc. I don't see it. I reject it. I also question the poster's motive in his statement.

[Delmar]

Could evidence ever convince you that Bush misled Congress and the American people about the alleged WMD threat Iraq posed?

Month after month we see more Iraqis and US solders die at the hand of extremists, who cannot tolerate the thought of a free Iraq. Month after month you gleefully chalk all of those deaths up as the fault of President Bush. I honestly believe that if you have it your way we will pull our troops out before the new government of Iraq is ready to defend it's people, and while You and I and the whole world will be sickened by the replay of the Cambodian " killing fields" in the middle east, The whole time you and your kind will secretly be rejoicing because you will finally have the ammunition to decimate George W Bush in the history books!

[simply one]

Month after month we see more Iraqis and US solders die at the hand of extremists, who cannot tolerate the thought of a free Iraq. Month after month you gleefully chalk all of those deaths up as the fault of President Bush. I honestly believe that if you have it your way we will pull our troops out before the new government of Iraq is ready to defend it's people, and while You and I and the whole world will be sickened by the replay of the Cambodian " killing fields" in the middle east, The whole time you and your kind will secretly be rejoicing because you will finally have the ammunition to decimate George W Bush in the history books!

IT IS THE FAULT OF GEORGE W. BUSH. WITHOUT HIS MISLEADING GETTING US INTO THE QUAGMIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THESE INSURGENTS WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN KILLING CIVILIANS EVERYDAY.

I agree, Saddam was a bad guy. BUT there are many dictators out there today who are much worse than him. WIth constant US and international surviellence, the chancce of him trying to pull some kind of mass murder again was about zero. It would have been much less bloody for us to keep up watching him and keep inspectors on the ground until he died (which would only be a decade tops) and then PEACEFULLY create a democracy.

Instead, Bush felt the urgent need to invade another country.

The insurgents DO NOT HATE FREEDOM. The right-wing rhetoric in you is showing in that statement.

Let me pose you a question, theoretically: if another country invaded America, basically decimated all the utilities and civil services, disrupted the police force, decimated the economy, and bombed out half a city, and let in swarms of foregin terrorists by destroying security THEN said that you were now free and everything was happy and friendly, would you be pissed?

Being a freedom loving American myself, I'd have to say that I'd be pretty pissed with anyone who occupied my country and then called us "free". The insurgents do nto hate freedom. They hate the Americans who came to their country, seemingly Imperialist American invaders, and basically decimated the country, killed tens of thousands of civilians, and then said that the Iraqis were free.

Unlike the majority of Americans, who, sheep-like, follow their imperical leaders' double-speak, the majority of Iraqis feel that they have been violated, and are fighting against what they see as and evil Imperialist empire.

INSURGENTS DO NOT HATE FREEDOM. THEY HATE THE FACT THAT THEIR COUNTRY IS BEING OCCUPIED BY OVER 125,000 FOREIGN SOLIDIERS.

[Delmar]

IT IS THE FAULT OF GEORGE W. BUSH. WITHOUT HIS MISLEADING GETTING US INTO THE QUAGMIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THESE INSURGENTS WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN KILLING CIVILIANS EVERYDAY. No Saddam and his boys would still be rapeing and killing them!

I agree, Saddam was a bad guy. BUT there are many dictators out there today who are much worse than him. WIth constant US and international surviellence, the chancce of him trying to pull some kind of mass murder again was about zero. It would have been much less bloody for us to keep up watching him and keep inspectors on the ground until he died (which would only be a decade tops) and then PEACEFULLY create a democracy.

Instead, Bush felt the urgent need to invade another country.

The insurgents DO NOT HATE FREEDOM. The right-wing rhetoric in you is showing in that statement.

Let me pose you a question, theoretically: if another country invaded America, basically decimated all the utilities and civil services, disrupted the police force, decimated the economy, and bombed out half a city, and let in swarms of foregin terrorists by destroying security THEN said that you were now free and everything was happy and friendly, would you be pissed?

Being a freedom loving American myself, I'd have to say that I'd be pretty pissed with anyone who occupied my country and then called us "free". The insurgents do nto hate freedom. They hate the Americans who came to their country, seemingly Imperialist American invaders, and basically decimated the country, killed tens of thousands of civilians, and then said that the Iraqis were free.

Unlike the majority of Americans, who, sheep-like, follow their imperical leaders' double-speak, the majority of Iraqis feel that they have been violated, and are fighting against what they see as and evil Imperialist empire.

INSURGENTS DO NOT HATE FREEDOM. THEY HATE THE FACT THAT THEIR COUNTRY IS BEING OCCUPIED BY OVER 125,000 FOREIGN SOLIDIERS. Killers are coming in from every country in the region and they are killing far more Iraqis than Americans but I'm sure they are only doing it because they don't like the American presence.
:kookoo:

[simply one]

No Saddam and his boys would still be rapeing and killing them!

Saddam stopped the atrocities when the international community started monitoring him 24/7. So, basically, the US invasion was uneeded because with intense international scrutiny AND UN inspectors on the ground, Saddam was not commiting any more atrocities.

Killers are coming in from every country in the region and they are killing far more Iraqis than Americans but I'm sure they are only doing it because they don't like the American presence.
:kookoo:

They are killing because they object to the American presence, and they are running by a principle which our own president has espoused: "If you're not with us, you're against us".

Besides, they are pressed against the wall, and see the only way to attract attention to their cause is by killing and making an undeniable statement. As to why their killing Iraqis, they feel that the only way to draw attention is to kill, and whose easier to attack? Unarmed civilians, or US solidiers decked out with body armor and machine guns???

I'm sure they're doing it because they hate the "imperialist" American presence.

And I;m also sure that you have blinded yourself with right-wing propaganda. :kookoo:

[7cworldwide]

And I;m also sure that you have blinded yourself with right-wing propaganda. :kookoo:

...no more than you've "blinded" yourself with left-wing propaganda. It goes both ways ya know. You choose to ignore at least as much (if not more) than any right-wing Christian.

:kookoo: ...and a kookoo for you. Let's be fair. :D

[simply one]

...no more than you've "blinded" yourself with left-wing propaganda. It goes both ways ya know. You choose to ignore at least as much (if not more) than any right-wing Christian.

:kookoo: ...and a kookoo for you. Let's be fair. :D

Anyways, I may admit to taking in some left-wing propaganda BUTTTTTT I've focused much more on the facts. And the facts are:

1) George Bush and Co. said they were invading because Iraq had WMD and connections to Al Queda

2) Iraq DID NOT (to date, 2.5 years later) have WMD or links with Al Queda. Depsite whatever WorldNetNews says.

3) 1700+ US soldiers and 25000+ Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the invasion and the resulting lack of security in Iraq

4) The war was NOT a necessary final resort at the time (no matter what right-wing media says). We had NOT exhausted all the options. Saddam was NOT going to commit atrocities with the international eye on his every move, fighters flying over on surveillence, and UN inspectors on the ground.

[simply one]

almost forget.

You and your silly right-wing ultra-propaganda, misleading this country. :kookoo: (there, 2 each)

the people will wake up in 2006!!!

[Skeptic]

Yes, but I doubt if I could be convinced that taking out Saddam was a bad thing. I have yet to hear anyone who was opposed to Bush's invasion say that Saddam was not a brutal dictator or did not need to be removed from power!

The question is NOT whether taking out Saddam was good or bad. The question is, in March 2003, was it SO URGENT to take out Saddam that he just HAD to be removed immediately by launching a massive invasion that everyone knew would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children? Of course Saddam needed to go! But, did he need to go so urgently, in March 2003, that there was absolutely no time to pursue other options - including continuing to box him in and closely monitor his activities 24/7 by the U.S. and international community?

Those who support Bush's invasion tend to focus on how good it was to get rid of bad-boy Saddam. Those who opposed Bush's invasion tend to focus on how unnecessary or immoral it was to get rid of bad-boy Saddam by invading Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people, as well as our brave troops!

The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did, in March 2003. Bush said there was "no doubt" that Saddam had WMDs. He and his top aides knew there was doubt in the intelligence community, but preferred to mislead Congress and the American people into believing there was no doubt. By giving the impression that there was no doubt, Bush helped create a sense of urgency when there actually was no real urgency. This kind of misleading by a President is one of the greatest abuses of power and influence that a President can make!

Yet, Bush supporters tend to ignore such misleading in order to support "their man" in power. Bush supporters tend to see a Bush Presidency as an opportunity to move our country and government in a more conservative direction on domestic and moral issues. Most think he is doing a good job in the so-called "war on terrorism," while ignoring the fact that worldwide anti-American hatred and terrorism has dramatically increased since he invaded Iraq. Many are willing to overlook Bush's abuses in the realm of foreign policy by focusing on the positives, while ignoring or justifying the negatives. But ignoring such negatives sets a very dangerous precedent which has the potential of opening the door for future Presidents to repeat some of the same abuses.

This is one of my primary concerns regarding Bush's invasion of Iraq! As I see it, Bush has taken my country on a very dangerous path that can only lead to increased anti-American hatred and an increased risk of terrorist attacks in the future. By expanding the reasons that justify preemptive wars against countries to include spreading "freedom and democracy" or removing a brutal dictator, and not limiting preemption to those times when a threat is real, significant and imminent, Bush has set a very bad precedent for the future of America! I love this country too much to stand by and ignore or forgive such immoral policies of preemption.

Preemption is justifiable when a nation or terrorist group has proven themselves to be a real, significant and imminent danger to America, or when hard evidence is overwhelming that such rogue nations or groups possess WMD. The principle of "kill them before they become a threat to us" is simply wrong!

[Skeptic]

the people will wake up in 2006!!! We can only hope that the well-funded right-wing propaganda machine is not able to continue hoodwinking America as effectively as it has in the past several years.

We must fight ignorance and right-wing rhetoric with evidence and truth! Yes, for too many, fear and religion tend to be more persuasive than reason and reality. But, we must take the moral high ground and fight the good fight. We need to continue to expose the misleading and fear-mongering tactics of the Righties! The Righties tend to believe that positive ends morally justify negative means. We need to keep telling Americans that this is not what America should be about!

[Frank Ernest]

We can only hope that the well-funded right-wing propaganda machine is not able to continue hoodwinking America as effectively as it has in the past several years.

We must fight ignorance and right-wing rhetoric with evidence and truth! Yes, for too many, fear and religion tend to be more persuasive than reason and reality. But, we must take the moral high ground and fight the good fight. We need to continue to expose the misleading and fear-mongering tactics of the Righties! The Righties tend to believe that positive ends morally justify negative means. We need to keep telling Americans that this is not what America should be about!
Sounds familiar. Hmmmmm. :think:

:idea:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/609/1/56/

[On Fire]

STILL a just war.

STILL no impeachment.

Commies: the crying room is in the rear.

[simply one]

Sounds familiar. Hmmmmm. :think:

:idea:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/609/1/56/

So, you basically post a link the the CPUSA in a vague attempt to discredit the reason which we are posting, and the plans we have for victory in 2006.

You really are grabbing for straws, holding onto the very last defense you have (its your first defense too), which is to discredit the facts with fear and sensationalism.

And besides, much of that article is just a basic evaluation of the election, including what demographics voted for what, etc...

[simply one]

STILL a just war.

STILL no impeachment.

Commies: the crying room is in the rear.

You're still wrong.

This is a thread WHY he should be impeached, not that he WILL be impreached, and who knows, it may come in a few years.

And you still don't fail to fit the mold of a fear-mongering, right-wing-propaganda-spouting poster. Still you calling us "commies" trying to bring up fear inherent in American conciousness from the Cold War, which, to let you know, ended over 15 years ago now.

Please fight facts with facts, or else go home (ie leave this thread).

[cattyfan]

It's not a game. Two plus two still equals four. And that goes for 2006. Not 2008.

:shocked:

points to you for correcting me...I was not paying close enough attention to the year stated, and because this is a thread about the president I was thinking presidential election.

:idea: Just move my prediction to 2008, please.

[On Fire]

Didn't you hear me? I said:

STILL a just war.

STILL no impeachment.

Commies: the crying room is in the rear.

[Gerald]

Commies: the crying room is in the rear.
Where "commie" = "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration foreign policy"

[simply one]

Where "commie" = "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration foreign policy"

that almost seems to be the running definition of commie in this thread.

Actually, its more "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush policy." period.

[On Fire]

Where "commie" = "anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration foreign policy"
Whatever works for you.

For me, "commie" = "blind, ignorant, self-centered, the-holocaust-was-a-hoax, kumbaya singing, celebrate diversity, if it feels good do it, aluminum foil wearing, show me the way to Cuba, knobs".

[simply one]

Whatever works for you.

For me, "commie" = "blind, ignorant, self-centered, the-holocaust-was-a-hoax, kumbaya singing, celebrate diversity, if it feels good do it, aluminum foil wearing, show me the way to Cuba, knobs".

wait, how the heck can you tie in "holocaust was a hoax" with "celebrating diversity"?!?!?

You are definitely out of whack if you think that posters such as myself and aikido are "commies". We are the ones with our eyes open, seeing the world as it truly is, confronting you with FACTS, and caring about the welfare of everyone, even those whom most Americans hate.

You easily fit the first three qualifications, so I wouldn't be so sure of yourself. And by posting this put-down, you are simply showing more and more of what you truly are: A mindless, right-wing, self-centered, unthinking, propaganda spewing, self deluding "knob".

:kookoo:

ummm... hooray for name calling... although it does not help anything...

[On Fire]

wait, how the heck can you tie in "holocaust was a hoax" with "celebrating diversity"?!?!?You.

You are definitely out of whack if you think that posters such as myself and aikido are "commies". We are the ones with our eyes open, seeing the world as it truly is, confronting you with FACTS, and caring about the welfare of everyone, even those whom most Americans hate.Eyes open? Sounds like an opinion to me.

You easily fit the first three qualifications, so I wouldn't be so sure of yourself. And by posting this put-down, you are simply showing more and more of what you truly are: A mindless, right-wing, self-centered, unthinking, propaganda spewing, self deluding "knob".I was responding to my good friend, Gerald. The fact that you were able to identify with my post and get all defensive is rather telling.

[On Fire]

CNN reports "No Impeachment Today".

[Skeptic]

STILL a just war. STILL an unjust war!

Bush had no hard evidence of a WMD threat from Iraq. WMDs were never found.

Most experts believe Iraq's WMDs were destroyed in the early 1990s.

Bush knew that thousands of innocent men, women and children would die in an all-out massive invasion.

Saddam was boxed in, with UN inspectors on the ground, and with the U.S. and international community closely monitoring him 24/7.

There were regular U.S. bombings of Iraq in the months leading up to Bush's official invasion.

Saddam's major atrocities occurred in the late 1980s.

If Saddam had been committing any ongoing massacres during that time, we would have known about it.

A vast majority of nations, as well as the population of the planet, did NOT approve of Bush's invasion.

There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!

All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted.

There are good reasons to suspect that Bush & Co's intentions were NOT simply to "secure a just peace."

There was no certainty that the probability of success was high. "Mission Accomplished" was wishful thinking.

Just before Bush's invasion, there was no evil or suffering in Iraq that was so great that it warranted a proportionately massive military invasion that everyone knew would necessarily result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

If the alleged WMD threat from Iraq had not been an issue, NO member of Congress would have approved of Bush's invasion merely to overthrow a brutal dictator and reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people!

The British Defense Ministry showed that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun.

Iraq's military was NO MATCH for U.S. and British forces.

We had been bombing the hell out of Iraq for the past several years before Bush's unnecessary invasion!

Anyone who thought that thousands of innocent civilians would not be killed during Bush's unnecessary invasion must have been on major mind-numbing drugs!

STILL no impeachment. STILL a right-wing controlled Congress!

Commies: the crying room is in the rear. Communism is a stupid ideology. Being left of center on the political spectrum does not make one a "commie" any more than being right of center on the political spectrum makes one a "fascist."

I know you don't really believe we are communists. You throw out the term "commie" just as a way of demonizing your opponent.

[On Fire]

Once again Septic would have us believe that he is privy to classified information that would make all his wildest dreams come true. But the fact is he's a commie.

[Gerald]

For me, "commie" = "blind, ignorant, self-centered, the-holocaust-was-a-hoax, kumbaya singing, celebrate diversity, if it feels good do it, aluminum foil wearing, show me the way to Cuba, knobs"."Self-centered" is one thing that really gets you hot under the collar.

One might conclude you've been a victim of self-centeredness at some time or other...

[Gerald]

OF, do yourself a favor and put Skeptic on Ignore.

Skep, do yourself a favor and put OF on Ignore.

Then, neither of you will need to worry about the other. :thumb:

[Delmar]

OF, do yourself a favor and put Skeptic on Ignore.

Skep, do yourself a favor and put OF on Ignore.

Then, neither of you will need to worry about the other. :thumb:If everyone would put skepie on ignore that would be a good solution. Problem is his retoric dare not go unanswered or he might convince someone.

[Gerald]

If everyone would put skepie on ignore that would be a good solution. Problem is his retoric dare not go unanswered or he might convince someone.Only if you're an idealist or an altruist... ;)

Me, I just play the cards I'm dealt and don't gripe. My first question in any situation is "How can I benefit from this or turn it to my advantage?"...

[HerodionRomulus]

Bush continues to insist on linking 911 to Iraq
""We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens,"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050618/ts_alt_afp/usiraqbushattacks_050618171549_050618171549

Yet he has previously said just the opposite
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html

Veep Cheney insists it's almost over:
""The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/
BUT
Gen. Wm Webster, commander in Baghdad says:
"Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20050619/ts_nm/iraq_dc_37

Cheney's last throes is scarily reminiscent of Vietnam's "light at the end of the tunnel." Yet one more similarity between the two unnecessary and evil wars.

And a leading GOP Senator and member of the Foreign Relations committee refuses to blindly follow the blind
"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm

Emphasis mine: "The reality is that we're losing in Iraq"

[aikido7]

"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."---Howard Dean

"The people aren't afraid of [Bush] any more, they're sick of hearing about terrorism and they are, despite their general lack of interest in matters beyond our borders, tired of being hated around the world, killed in Iraq, and unemployed back home. Opposition calls for investigation and even, god love 'em, impeachment, are being met with increasingly desperate Stalinist tactics such as Republican leaders locking the Senate doors, turning off all the lights, and pretending not to be in when the two or three Democrats with any gumption show up to do business. It sounds fun, but it isn't.

Not desperate, the Bush Gang started a war, disassembled the government (that means lying), and sank the economy. Desperate, what will they do? I tremble to think.---John Piper

[Skeptic]

Once again Septic would have us believe that he is privy to classified information that would make all his wildest dreams come true. I have no need for "classified information" in order to logically arrive at my conclusions.

But the fact is he's a commie. Whatever ... :blabla:

[Skeptic]

If everyone would put skepie on ignore that would be a good solution. Problem is his retoric dare not go unanswered or he might convince someone. I have never put anyone on ignore. Doing so makes one equivalent to an ostrich! What is gained by ignoring opposing viewpoints?

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

Universal statements condemning a group you cannot possibly know every member of? What is that an example of, I wonder?

Let me get this right...someone makes a statement regarding refering to people wearing rags on thier heads...virtually calling people ragheads, a racist statement, i call them out on it and the group they belong to. And you give me the bad rep...some value you system you have going...its the epitome of fairness and goodness.

[Frank Ernest]

"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."---Howard Dean
:darwinsm: The reality is that Howard Dean has lost it in America.

"The people aren't afraid of [Bush] any more, they're sick of hearing about terrorism and they are, despite their general lack of interest in matters beyond our borders, tired of being hated around the world, killed in Iraq, and unemployed back home. Opposition calls for investigation and even, god love 'em, impeachment, are being met with increasingly desperate Stalinist tactics such as Republican leaders locking the Senate doors, turning off all the lights, and pretending not to be in when the two or three Democrats with any gumption show up to do business. It sounds fun, but it isn't.
:blabla: Bald-faced liar.

Not desperate, the Bush Gang started a war, disassembled the government (that means lying), and sank the economy. Desperate, what will they do? I tremble to think.---John Piper
:darwinsm: :Commie: :loser:

[Frank Ernest]

Let me get this right...someone makes a statement regarding refering to people wearing rags on thier heads...virtually calling people ragheads, a racist statement, i call them out on it and the group they belong to. And you give me the bad rep...some value you system you have going...its the epitome of fairness and goodness.
:darwinsm: BLOTD!

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: The reality is that Howard Dean has lost it in America.
What about conservative Republican Senator Chuck Hagel?

Howard Dean did not say "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

Republican Chuck Hagel (former member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) said "THINGS AREN'T GETTING BETTER; THEY'RE GETTING WORSE. tHE WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY. IT'S LIKE THEY'RE JUST MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG. THE REALITY IS THAT WE'RE LOSING IN IRAQ."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm

How many other Republicans "have lost it in America"???

The Republicans who are pushing Bush to withdraw the troops?

Or the other Republicans who--hearing from the poeple back home that they represent--are admitting increasing doubt about Ol' Smirk and Swagger's phony plan to bring democracy to the Middle East?

Hmmm?

And, oh yes--they really DID lock the doors and turn the lights off. No bald-faced lies there!





See, when you're the majority party, you can do things like that (if you need to, I guess!)....
It's called PARANOIA..

Look it up in the INDEX under "Stalinism, Tactics of..."


Rage on, little heathen. Rage on....

[Frank Ernest]

What about conservative Republican Senator Chuck Hagel?
What about him?

Howard Dean did not say "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
He still lost it, probably some time ago. :dizzy:

Republican Chuck Hagel (former member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) said "THINGS AREN'T GETTING BETTER; THEY'RE GETTING WORSE. tHE WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY. IT'S LIKE THEY'RE JUST MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG. THE REALITY IS THAT WE'RE LOSING IN IRAQ."http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm
:darwinsm: So, you have a guy with an "R" after his name. I'm supposed to be impressed with that. :nono:

How many other Republicans "have lost it in America"???
I give up. I don't spend much time counting Republicans.

The Republicans who are pushing Bush to withdraw the troops?
Really? Let me see. Using the usual :Commie: statistical methods: one Republican who says something should yield about 50 gazillion "unreported cases" of same.

Or the other Republicans who--hearing from the poeple back home that they represent--are admitting increasing doubt about Ol' Smirk and Swagger's phony plan to bring democracy to the Middle East?

Hmmm?
I read the same phony push-polls you do. I laugh, you take them seriously.

And, oh yes--they really DID lock the doors and turn the lights off. No bald-faced lies there!
:yawn: Talk about disconnected events!





See, when you're the majority party, you can do things like that (if you need to, I guess!)....
It's called PARANOIA..

Look it up in the INDEX under "Stalinism, Tactics of..."
I found it under Demo:Commie:s in Congress, Tactics of ... (1993 - 2003)

Rage on, little heathen. Rage on....
:darwinsm: A :Commie: atheist calls me a heathen. That's pretty close to a BLOTD.

[Frank Ernest]

Dickie Durbin finally did the Bill Clinton on the Senate floor (choking back the tears). He hasn't quite got the lip quiver yet.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44913

[Frank Ernest]

"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."---Howard Dean


Howard Dean did not say "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
:darwinsm:

[On Fire]

Impeachment Check: not today.

[Holly]

Impeachment Check: not today.
Osama bin Ladin Check: still at large today, nearly four years after chimp-in-chief promised to hunt him down "dead or alive"

[On Fire]

Commie Check: Holly (yup), Septic (yup), Moronpheous (yup).

[Holly]

Commie Check: Holly (yup), Septic (yup), Moronpheous (yup).

Why are you offended when someone points out that Bush has failed in his stated mission to apprehend the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on our nation? You might be satisfied by the diversion in Iraq, but the nearly 3,000 innocent people who were murdered that day on our own soil have never been avenged. I have to wonder whose side you are on.

[Frank Ernest]

Why are you offended when someone points out that Bush has failed in his stated mission to apprehend the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on our nation? You might be satisfied by the diversion in Iraq, but the nearly 3,000 innocent people who were murdered that day on our own soil have never been avenged. I have to wonder whose side you are on.
:darwinsm: Oh my! Nice bit of twisted, convoluted reasoning(?) there.

[On Fire]

Why are you offended when someone points out that Bush has failed in his stated mission to apprehend the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on our nation? You might be satisfied by the diversion in Iraq, but the nearly 3,000 innocent people who were murdered that day on our own soil have never been avenged. I have to wonder whose side you are on.

Listen up, Holly. Osama Yomama will be found, hopefully more dead than alive. You don't seem to understand that playing hide and seek when the whole world is your playing field is a tough game. Especially when the big, brave terrorists hide in holes in the ground.

[Holly]

Listen up, Holly. Osama Yomama will be found, hopefully more dead than alive.
Yes, I heard Bush say the same thing nearly four years ago. Wishful thinking is one thing, and reality quite another.


You don't seem to understand that playing hide and seek when the whole world is your playing field is a tough game. Especially when the big, brave terrorists hide in holes in the ground.
Especially when an incompetent commander-in-chief invades the wrong country and squanders our military resources over a trumped-up threat from a two-bit tyrant, and cons the majority of Americans into believing that Saddam, and not Osama, was responsible for September 11. I suppose it is easier for people like you to hide your head in the sand and cry "commie" than it is to face the bitter truth that you have been duped and that Bush's disastrous errors have increased international terrorism, rather than making us safer.

[Gerald]

You don't seem to understand that playing hide and seek when the whole world is your playing field is a tough game. Especially when the big, brave terrorists hide in holes in the ground.That's what nuclear bombs are for. Drop enough of them, and you're sure to get your foe sooner or later. After all, there really isn't anything in that region worth preserving: just mountains, deserts and heathen rag-heads...

Just think of them as really big Raid™ indoor foggers... :chuckle:

[On Fire]

Wow...another "average American" who appears to have access to national security intelligence. Where do I sign up?

[Gerald]

Wow...another "average American" who appears to have access to national security intelligence. Where do I sign up?I trust you're talking to Holly and not to me.

Frankly, I don't care where Osama is, or if he's dead or alive (I still think he's a grease spot underneath a mountain at Tora Bora), but claiming he's in a given country is as good a pretext as any to attack that country.

Iran, for example...

[Skeptic]

Commie Check: Holly (yup), Septic (yup), Moronpheous (yup). Commie Check: Anyone who opposed Bush's unnecessary invasion.

[Gerald]

Commie Check: Anyone who opposed Bush's unnecessary invasion.Actually, I think that pejorative is used to describe anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration policy.

None of the Bush-boosters around here have the cajones to come right out and say that, though... :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Osama Yomama will be found, hopefully more dead than alive. You don't seem to understand that playing hide and seek when the whole world is your playing field is a tough game. Especially when the big, brave terrorists hide in holes in the ground. You Righties were far more interested in ousting Saddam, who was not a threat, than getting Osama and his gang, who was.

You approved when Bush diverted the bulk of our military to change a regime that was not a threat, rather than keep it focused on a real terrorist threat.

You approved when Bush's unnecessary invasion killed thousands of innocent men, women and children, who were not a threat.

Talk about twisted, convoluted reasoning!

[On Fire]

I trust you're talking to Holly and not to me.

Correct!

[On Fire]

Actually, I think that pejorative is used to describe anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Bush Administration policy.

None of the Bush-boosters around here have the cajones to come right out and say that, though... :chuckle:
These commies aren't just disagreeing. They are making claims and statements that would require them to have access to classified information in order to be true. They don't so they must be commies (idiots, whiners, sore losers, etc.).

[On Fire]

:vomit:
Commie.

[Gerald]

These commies aren't just disagreeing.
Oh, come on, show a little backbone! Disagreement = Treason and you know it!

It doesn't matter what The Opposition™ says. The fact that they're The Opposition™ is reason enough to hunt them down and crush them.

Yes, my new jackboots fit quite nicely. Why do you ask? :chuckle:

[simply one]

You.

huh. really? I know that the holocaust happened. So, there goes that theory.

Eyes open? Sounds like an opinion to me.

Actually, "eyes open" in the sense that I actually pay attention to world news and put teh wellbeing of people before the wellbeing of the American government.

I was responding to my good friend, Gerald. The fact that you were able to identify with my post and get all defensive is rather telling.

1) You were fairly vague in your accusations.

2) Gerald made some valid points, and didn't deserve your insults.

[On Fire]

Gerald made some valid points,

Pure luck.

and didn't deserve your insults.

:ha: :darwinsm: :ha: :darwinsm: :ha: :darwinsm: :ha: :darwinsm: :ha: :darwinsm:

[aikido7]

Commie Check: Holly (yup), Septic (yup), Moronpheous (yup). ...ahem! a-HEM!!!

[aikido7]

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
- George W. Bush -- 2 July 2003


"George W. Bush, you have asked us to 'bring it on.' And so help me, [we will] like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?"
- Iraqi resistance propaganda video -- 2004

[On Fire]

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
- George W. Bush -- 2 July 2003


"George W. Bush, you have asked us to 'bring it on.' And so help me, [we will] like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?"
- Iraqi resistance propaganda video -- 2004
Car bombs and suicide bombers do not a resistance make. They are killing more of their own brothers than they are Americans. :duh:

[aikido7]

Car bombs and suicide bombers do not a resistance make. They are killing more of their own brothers than they are Americans. :duh:Isn't it a matter of degree?

After all, you cannot expect a militant group which arises out of an Arab tribal culture to undertake both their resistance and their defense by a "technologically superior" system of air power and massively deadly "daisy-cutter" bombing--can you?

They're on a shoestring budget, for God's sake! And their concept of time is tempered by an awareness of reality bereft of fast food, traffic headaches and the Lazy-Boy lifestyle.

I'm sure they are somewhat like the colonial patriot Nathan Hale in that they actually preach and practice the idea that they regret only having "one life to give" for their country.

Doesn't that make sense, On Fire?

[Holly]

These commies aren't just disagreeing. They are making claims and statements that would require them to have access to classified information in order to be true.
This is the second time (at least) that you've said this. Can you tell us which specific "claims and statements" you are referring to, or are you just trying to distract from your inability to find any facts to rebut what was said? :hammer:

[On Fire]

"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
- George W. Bush -- 2 July 2003


"George W. Bush, you have asked us to 'bring it on.' And so help me, [we will] like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?"
- Iraqi resistance propaganda video -- 2004
You offer this up like they've actually pulled one over on Bush. What's YOUR point?

[On Fire]

This is the second time (at least) that you've said this. Can you tell us which specific "claims and statements" you are referring to, or are you just trying to distract from your inability to find any facts to rebut what was said? :hammer:
I collected these from just the last 3 pages of posts:


1. Iraq DID NOT (to date, 2.5 years later) have WMD or links with Al Queda.

2. The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did.

3. There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!

4. there was no evil or suffering in Iraq

5. All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted!!

6. with intense international scrutiny AND UN inspectors on the ground, Saddam was not commiting any more atrocities.


Not one of these statements can be backed up with fact. There are "good reasons" to "strongly suspect" that you commies are ignorant.

[Gerald]

Pure luck.
Luck's got nuthin' to do with it, boyo!

You wish you had my phat skillz!

:banana::banana::banana:

[Holly]

I collected these from just the last 3 pages of posts:



Not one of these statements can be backed up with fact. There are "good reasons" to "strongly suspect" that you commies are ignorant.

I did not make any of those statements, as you well know, so don't imply that I did. I will ask you once again, referring to posts 2322 and 2327, which you directed specifically at ME, to please identify which of MY "claims and statements" (not somebody else's), you feel are in error or would require access to classified information. Again, don't even try putting someone else's words in my mouth.

[On Fire]

Give me a break. I didn't attribute anything to you. You're still a commie. So?

[On Fire]

You wish you had my phat skillz!

:banana::banana::banana:
Where's BillyBob with a wife joke when you need him?

[Gerald]

Where's BillyBob with a wife joke when you need him?Come on, OF, do your worst.

Besides, BB and I have an understanding: he doesn't attack Mrs. Gerald, and I don't attack Mrs. Billybob.

[On Fire]

Come on, OF, do your worst.

Besides, BB and I have an understanding: he doesn't attack Mrs. Gerald, and I don't attack Mrs. Billybob.
Nah....I happen to like your wife.

[Gerald]

Nah....I happen to like your wife.Which demonstrates conclusively that you've never, ever met my wife!

:noid:

Hmmm, that didn't come out quite right... :think: :noid:

[simply one]

I collected these from just the last 3 pages of posts:



Not one of these statements can be backed up with fact. There are "good reasons" to "strongly suspect" that you commies are ignorant.

Well, those statements ARE facts.

1) Iraq had NO WMD at time of invasion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

2)Saddam was weakened, had no WMD, was under intense internatiol pressure with UN inspectors on the ground, had US and international warplanes flying overhead, and was being watched 24/7. He wasn't doing anything and he wasn't going to do anything.

Article from the British Guardian based on an interview with an ex-Bush Administration official (I doubt this made much news in the U.S. because the Administration would want to downplay it): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html

At a press conference yesterday, Mr Thielmann said that, as of March 2003, when the US began military operations, "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbours or to the United States".

Mr Thielmann also said there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida. He added: "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude ... 'We know the answers - give us the intelligence to support those answers'."

3) http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/11952371.htm

Do you want to know?

That's the only popular division that matters in the United States today: Those who want to determine once and for all if President Bush knowingly ''fixed the facts'' regarding Iraq, thereby misleading Congress and the American people into supporting an unnecessary war, and those who will cover their ears and hum loudly in order to maintain their belief that Bush and his advisors remain above reproach.

You're in one camp or the other. Either you want to know if you've been lied to, or you don't.

I think you need to stop humming.... :kookoo:

4) I didn't make this claim, nor do I believe it. BUT there is suffering everywhere, and Saddam was not commiting atrocities in the lead up to the war.

5) This one is obvious. The UN inspectors were on the ground and the UN was entering a dialogue with Saddam to negotite an end to his weapons.

I have to go now, but actually read those articles. I RECCOMEND THE FIRST ARTICLE TO ANYONE ON THIS THREAD. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

[On Fire]

:vomit:
You must wear those special glasses that allow you to read between the lines.

[Gerald]

You must wear those special glasses that allow you to read between the lines.Is this where you hold up your first three fingers...?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Have you heard the news? Skeptic's gonna be over the moon!

BUSH HAS BEEN INPEACHED!

[aikido7]

You offer this up like they've actually pulled one over on Bush. What's YOUR point?You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

My point is as old as the Scriptures. Violence begats violence. The only way off the cycle of humanity's myth of redemptive violence is to seek counsel in the spirit of Christ.

Ol' Smirk and Swagger needs to read his Bible more. Why does he continue to focus on his "good intentions" instead of the tragic effects of those "good intentions"?

[Skeptic]

You must wear those special glasses that allow you to read between the lines. And this is coming from someone who literally interprets an old book of fairy tales and superstitions.

What kind of glasses do you wear, OF? :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

I collected these from just the last 3 pages of posts:

1. Iraq DID NOT (to date, 2.5 years later) have WMD or links with Al Queda.

2. The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did.

3. There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!

4. there was no evil or suffering in Iraq

5. All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted!!

6. with intense international scrutiny AND UN inspectors on the ground, Saddam was not commiting any more atrocities.


Not one of these statements can be backed up with fact. There are "good reasons" to "strongly suspect" that you commies are ignorant. 1. Iraq DID NOT have WMD or links with Al Queda.

According to the Bush Administration's own Duelfer report:

- Saddam Hussein ended his nuclear program in 1991, after the gulf War, and there was no evidence he tried to restart it.

- Baghdad abandoned its biological weapons program in 1995 out of fear it would be discovered.

- Iraq destroyed its hidden biological weapons stocks in 1991 and 1992.

- No evidence was uncovered that Iraq had biological weapons production systems mounted on trucks or rail cars.

- Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there is no evidence Iraq ever resumed producing such weapons.

- There is no evidence Iraq had any Scud missiles when the U.S. invaded last year.

According to the 9/11 Commission:

There was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The report indicates meetings between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden, who was attempting to set up training camps in Iraq and procure weapons. The 9/11 Commission reported that Iraqis "did not respond" to those requests. This is a far cry from what most people would call a "tie" or a "connection."

Do YOU have evidence that Charles Duelfer, of the Iraq Survey Group, did not have access to that showed Iraq did have WMD in the months leading up to Bush's invasion?

Are you claiming that the 9/11 Commission was wrong in its assessment of Iraq's alleged links with Al Queda? What evidence do you have that the 9/11 Commission did not?

2. The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did.
Given that Bush had no clear hard evidence of a WMD threat from Iraq,
given that Saddam was boxed in and monitored 24/7,
given that the U.S. was regularly bombing Iraq during the months BEFORE the invasion,
given that Saddam's major atrocities occurred way back in the late 1980s,
given that Saddam was unlikely to commit such atrocities with UN inspectors on the ground,
there was no urgency so great to remove Saddam that warranted a massive invasion that unnecessarily killed many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

Why do YOU think that the urgency to remove Saddam was so great that Bush just HAD to launch a massive bloody invasion in March 2003?

3. There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!

Here is one good reason:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
-- George W. Bush - Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

There was PLENTY of doubt in the intelligence community about Iraq's alleged WMDs!! And it turns out that those doubters were correct!

"Al-Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. ... you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam ...
-- George W. Bush - September 26, 2002

Wrong! There were PLENTY of experts questioning this assertion.

On Feb 24, 2001, in Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years." America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box."

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenseless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Then, just after September 11, 2001, all of a sudden, Iraq is a major WMD threat!!

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
-- George W. Bush - United Nations Address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
-- George W. Bush - Radio Address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
-- George W. Bush - Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."-- George W. Bush - State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

Source (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html)

Where is the hard evidence Bush used to back up the above statements?

U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson:
"I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat,"

"A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

"It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying about?"

Former Director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Greg Thielmann:
"I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."

"Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States."

"This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude."

4. there was no evil or suffering in Iraq -- (out of context!!!)

Here is my exact quote: "Just before Bush's invasion, there was no evil or suffering in Iraq that was so great that it warranted a proportionately massive military invasion that everyone knew would necessarily result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children."

There is "evil and suffering" in many countries! But this does not mean the U.S. should massively invade all of these countries in order to stop all "evil and suffering"!

5. All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention had NOT been exhausted!! Given that Bush had no hard evidence of WMD and was not a threat, there was PLENTY of time for further negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention! The UN Inspectors were on the ground, still looking for WMD that was not to be found. Therefore, Saddam WAS engaged in some level of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention of further hostilities! If he had not been so engaged, he would never have let the UN Inspectors back in. There were continuing negotiations leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion! Since there was NO urgency to invade Iraq, which was not a threat, these negotiations could have continued. Even if such negotiations continued for another few years (by which time the nonexistent WMDs would STILL not have been found), this option would have been better than the unnecessary killing of many thousands of innocent men, women and children, along with our brave troops!

6. with intense international scrutiny AND UN inspectors on the ground, Saddam was not commiting any more atrocities. Do you have evidence to the contrary? When evidence is lacking, the rational thing to do is reserve judgment. As far as I know, there is STILL no evidence that Saddam was committing any atrocities during the recent years leading up to Bush's unnecessary invasion. I'm sure Saddam was a brutal dictator who did what brutal dictators do. But during the years leading up to Bush's invasion, there is no evidence that he did the kind of atrocities that would have warranted a massive invasion that everyone knew would kill many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

[aikido7]

"I've not made up our mind about military action," claimed our moral, godly president. And this was two weeks before he bombed Baghdad on CNN.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030306-8.html

(Now, of course, we know that we had been bombing Iraq illegally for months before "the war option" was officially taken!)
_______________________________________

On Fire--You read, but only superficially and to confirm your own prejudices. Skeptic has been posting the facts for weeks. The same facts you have been all too willing to ignore for years.

You are entitled to your own opinions, my friend, but not to your own facts.

[Lovejoy]

Let me get this right...someone makes a statement regarding refering to people wearing rags on thier heads...virtually calling people ragheads, a racist statement, i call them out on it and the group they belong to. And you give me the bad rep...some value you system you have going...its the epitome of fairness and goodness.
I gave you some points, and then I took them back. They were mine to do so with.

First of all, he said "rags over their eyes." I have no idea what he was referring to, but it was not overtly racist. Secondly, characterizing an entire group based on your (flawed) perceptions of a single member does you no credit, and is not even logical. Find out what he meant. If it was racist, then by all means continue. He already denied that it was, but you were entirely disinterested in him or the potential that he might not be as bad you wanted him to be. You give me very little hope that you are capable of an unbiased contribution.

[Frank Ernest]

"I've not made up our mind about military action," claimed our moral, godly president. And this was two weeks before he bombed Baghdad on CNN.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030306-8.html
Apparently, in those two weeks, he made up his mind. :up:

(Now, of course, we know that we had been bombing Iraq illegally for months before "the war option" was officially taken!)
:darwinsm: You forgot to include the word "immorally." :down:
_______________________________________

On Fire--You read, but only superficially and to confirm your own prejudices. Skeptic has been posting the facts for weeks. The same facts you have been all too willing to ignore for years.
:darwinsm: The relationship between :skeptic: and "facts" is quite tenuous. :confused:

You are entitled to your own opinions, my friend, but not to your own facts.
Right back atcha, :Commie:. :thumb:

[On Fire]

"I've not made up our mind about military action," claimed our moral, godly president. And this was two weeks before he bombed Baghdad on CNN.

Perfect example of how you commies create a conspiracy out of nothing.

The decision to begin bombing could have been made just minutes before the bombing began. What's your problem? You want to dictate the rules of war? Run for office.

Stupid. Commie. Waste.

[On Fire]

1. Iraq DID NOT have WMD or links with Al Queda.

Your Uncle Saddam not only HAD WMDs but he used them on his own people. We gave him years to provide proof that his WMDs had been destroyed but HE COULDn'T DO IT. Hmmmmmm.....I wonder WHY???

[On Fire]

2. The bottom line is that there was no urgency to oust Saddam in the manner we did.
Just like there was no urgency to protect our airlines on September 10, 2001. Neither you or I are capable of determining the "urgency". The President has information that we do not. Get over it.

[aikido7]

Your Uncle Saddam not only HAD WMDs but he used them on his own people. We gave him years to provide proof that his WMDs had been destroyed but HE COULDn'T DO IT. Hmmmmmm.....I wonder WHY???Saddam's weapons were debilitated long before the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He said he did not have them. The inspectors did not find them. Old Smirk and Swagger said he did.

It looks increasingly likely that the president wanted some justification and cover to attack a sovereign nation in order to fulfill an agenda other than one to constitutionally protect America from those who attacked us.

Many of us said that then. The whole mess quacked like a stinking duck.
Just like there was no urgency to protect our airlines on September 10, 2001. Neither you or I are capable of determining the "urgency". The President has information that we do not. Get over it.There was no urgency because members of our government needed a Peal Harbor to accomplish the up-front goals of the policy paper "Project for a New American Century." Of course you are not capable of determination of urgency. You have a lying president and a compliant press. You accept everything that those you place in authority tell you. It's obviously much easier that way. And it further guarantees you will forever be distracted outward looking for enemies wherever Daddy points out to you that they are.

[On Fire]

3. There are good reasons to strongly suspect that the Congressional approval of Bush's unnecessary invasion involved coercion and deceit!
This lie is filled with so many inflamatory lies I'm surprised it hasn't been declared a WMD.

"good reasons" = matter of opinion.

"strongly suspect" = make up lies and stand behind them.

"unnecessary" = circular reasoning

"coercion and deceit" = baseless lie

[aikido7]

This lie is filled with so many inflamatory lies I'm surprised it hasn't been declared a WMD.

"good reasons" = matter of opinion.

"strongly suspect" = make up lies and stand behind them.

"unnecessary" = circular reasoning

"coercion and deceit" = baseless lieWhich part of the "immanent threat" cover story don't you understand? What is it about "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" are you having trouble with? How can you take seriously the "We couldn't imagine planes being used as missles against our country" line? Given what we knew and felt then, it does not surprise me that good sunshine patriots would fail to take seriously the facts., fail to connect the dots and fail to question what authorities have said. But given what we now know--and the information and persepective afforded to us now--you have no excuse still insisting WMDs are in Syria, Saddam Hussein and Osama were drinking buddies and Al-Qaida was running the nation of Iraq.

[Skeptic]

Perfect example of how you commies create a conspiracy out of nothing.

The decision to begin bombing could have been made just minutes before the bombing began. What's your problem? You want to dictate the rules of war? Run for office.

Stupid. Commie. Waste. The point is that the evidence shows Bush HAD made up his mind about military action long before he invaded!

Therefore, another lie.

[Skeptic]

Your Uncle Saddam not only HAD WMDs but he used them on his own people. According to the Bush Administration's own Duelfer report:

- Saddam Hussein HAD a nuke program, but ended his nuclear program in 1991, after the gulf War, and there was no evidence he tried to restart it.

- Saddam HAD bio weapons, but Baghdad abandoned its biological weapons program in 1995 out of fear it would be discovered.

- Saddam HAD bio weapons, but Iraq destroyed its hidden biological weapons stocks in 1991 and 1992.

- Saddam HAD bio weapons, but no evidence was uncovered that Iraq had biological weapons production systems mounted on trucks or rail cars.

- Saddam HAD chemical weapons, but Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there is no evidence Iraq ever resumed producing such weapons.

- Saddam HAD Scud missiles, but there is no evidence Iraq had any Scud missiles when the U.S. invaded last year.

We gave him years to provide proof that his WMDs had been destroyed but HE COULDn'T DO IT. Hmmmmmm.....I wonder WHY??? It's very difficult to prove you don't have something.

There was plenty of evidence available from UN and IAEA inspectors that most, if not all, WMD had been destroyed.

Poor record keeping could account for any alleged unaccounted for WMDs.

Since the lives of many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children are on the line, it was up to the U.S. to prove Saddam had some remaining WMD.

It is wrong to invade a county, killing thousands of innocent people, simply because that country cannot prove they got rid of every last WMD.

When it comes to WAR, the burden of proof of a threat is on those starting the war!

Wars based on mere suspicion are WRONG!

[simply one]

still waiting for a substantial response from the righties... :mock: :dunce:

oh wait, I just remember that you can't refute the truth and the facts with anything substantial. So, I'll stop expecting a substantial response from them.

BIG LETTERS DON'T MAKE YOU ANY MORE RIGHT!

[On Fire]

Impeachment Check: nope, not today

[On Fire]

The point is that the evidence shows Bush HAD made up his mind about military action long before he invaded!

A commie AND a mind reader. You should take that act on the road. :BRAVO:

[Morpheus]

OF, it is beyond your narrow reasoning ability to understand that the #1 terrorist nation in the world is the US and that GWB is a toss-up for the most ruthless terrorist leader in our history with Reagan. German nationalists considered Hitler a hero.

[On Fire]

:yawn:

[Morpheus]

:yawn:That's a good boy. Go back to sleep.

[On Fire]

I can sleep and watch for you to post more lies at the same time.

[Skeptic]

Just like there was no urgency to protect our airlines on September 10, 2001. From what I hear, we are not doing that much better today at protecting our airlines than before 9/11.

Neither you or I are capable of determining the "urgency". The President has information that we do not. Get over it. The President has no right to keep his justification for starting wars secret from Congress or the American people!! It is the President's responsibility to tell Congress and the American people the nature and basis of the urgency, if it means starting a war. Bush did attempt to tell us about the alleged urgency, but he failed miserably at providing the necessary hard empirical justification for such an urgency.

Wars based on suspicion are WRONG!

[On Fire]

Wars based on suspicion are WRONG!
Posts based on ignorance and superstition are STUPID!

[Skeptic]

This lie is filled with so many inflamatory lies I'm surprised it hasn't been declared a WMD.

"good reasons" = matter of opinion.

"strongly suspect" = make up lies and stand behind them.

"unnecessary" = circular reasoning

"coercion and deceit" = baseless lie How is my saying that Bush's invasion was unnecessary equal to "circular reasoning"?

When are you going to justify your allegation that those who opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq are lying?

If you think I am lying, then please provide some evidence to support your position.

Simply saying "it's a lie" is not good enough.

I've given my basis for my statements. Now it's your turn.

[Skeptic]

I say "Wars based on suspicion are WRONG!"

And you reply Posts based on ignorance and superstition are STUPID! Rather than continue to make unsupported claims, why not show WHY my posts "are based on ignorance and superstition"?

Merely saying so isn't good enough.

[simply one]

still waiting for a substantial response from the righties... :mock: :dunce:

oh wait, I just remember that you can't refute the truth and the facts with anything substantial. So, I'll stop expecting a substantial response from them.

BIG LETTERS DON'T MAKE YOU ANY MORE RIGHT!

just reiterating that so skeptic doesn't get his hopes up.

[On Fire]

How is my saying that Bush's invasion was unnecessary equal to "circular reasoning"?

At question is whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary. Your argument against the war is to say it was unnecessary. Cute. :baby:

[On Fire]

blah...blah...blah...
Where's the "whatever" smilie when you need it?

[Skeptic]

just reiterating that so skeptic doesn't get his hopes up. I'm an optimist! :thumb:

I just feel that On Fire and other Righties in this thread will one day at least attempt to provide us with substantial responses!

[Skeptic]

At question is whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary. Your argument against the war is to say it was unnecessary. Cute. Wrong.

Arguments are premises (reasons/evidence) that lead to (support) a conclusion.

My argument against the war is not that it was unnecessary. One of my arguments is that Bush failed to provide clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat. This argument, therefore, leads me to the conclusion that the war was unnecessary!

My conclusion that the war was unnecessary, then serves as a premise (argument) that leads me to the further conclusion that the war was immoral.

[On Fire]

My argument against the war is not that it was unnecessary. One of you commies said it, not me.


One of my arguments is that Bush failed to provide clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat. This argument, therefore, leads me to the conclusion that the war was unnecessary!


Again, are you one of his cabinet members? Does he routinely inform you of national security issues? Do the CIA and FBI send copies of their reports to you? No? What's that you say? NO?!?!?!

That's what I thought.

[HerodionRomulus]

It looks increasingly likely that the president wanted some justification and cover to attack a sovereign nation in order to fulfill an agenda other than one to constitutionally protect America from those who attacked us.

There was no urgency because members of our government needed a Peal Harbor to accomplish the up-front goals of the policy paper "Project for a New American Century."

They were looking for a "Maine" but gladly took a Pearl Harbor as it suited their imperialist goals.

[Skeptic]

Again, are you one of his cabinet members? Does he routinely inform you of national security issues? Do the CIA and FBI send copies of their reports to you? No? What's that you say? NO?!?!?!

That's what I thought. I'm only basing my conclusions on the available evidence. That's all anyone can do.

Do you believe that the President is hiding his REAL reasons for invading Iraq?

Do you think it is rational and proper to merely accept the word of any President who claims that it is necessary to launch a massive invasion of another country, which everyone knows would result in the collateral deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

Again, the President has no right to keep his justification for starting wars secret from Congress or the American people!! It is the President's responsibility to tell Congress and the American people the nature and basis of any alleged urgency, if it means starting a war. Bush did attempt to tell us about the alleged urgency, but he failed miserably at providing the necessary hard empirical justification for such an urgency.

Simply taking the word of a President that a sovereign country poses an "urgent threat" that requires an all-out military invasion, in the absence of supporting evidence, is not only irresponsible and foolish, it is unpatriotic!! Americans have a civic duty to be as informed as possible about the actions of our government, and make sure their elected representatives are not trying to hoodwink them into military conflicts that might not be necessary!

Wars based on suspicion are WRONG!

[Frank Ernest]

OF, it is beyond your narrow reasoning ability to understand that the #1 terrorist nation in the world is the US and that GWB is a toss-up for the most ruthless terrorist leader in our history with Reagan. German nationalists considered Hitler a hero.
:darwinsm: :Commie: :loser:

[Morpheus]

:darwinsm: :Commie: :loser:
Frank. For you to begin to see you will first have to pull your head out of whatever hole it is buried in.

[Frank Ernest]

Frank. For you to begin to see you will first have to pull your head out of whatever hole it is buried in.
:darwinsm: Begin to see what? That you're an incorrigible :Commie: ? I already know that. :yawn:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20050624.shtml

[aikido7]

The unmasked liar and boy-man Oliver North giving self-serving jingoism to smear a truth-teller? That's about as honorable as Karl Rove smugging that liberals want to kill US soliders and give Osama bin Laden "therapy"!!!

Why doesn't Ollie ('semper fi") North get to the real heart of the matter here: Distract from evil by manufacturing more of it.

Chaining people hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water for 18-24 hourse is certainly not a tactic of totalitarian regimes.

Allowing them to defecate and urinate on themselves is not what the Nazis did to human beings.

Temperatures made so cold that another naked person is shaking with cold or turning the temperature up to over 100 degrees in a non-ventilated room is certainly not like an experiment of Dr. Joseph Mengele at German death camps.

And no, the Pol Pot lemmings would never leave a prisoner chained hand and foot and left naked on a tile floor to pull his hair out listening to loud rap music. After all, Frank, rap music was not even AROUND when Hitler and Pol Pot protected THEIR countries from enemies!

Pretending to hear criticism of our torture policy as an attack on this country and/or our troops is a show of incredible cowardice, Bud.

[Gerald]

Your Uncle Saddam not only HAD WMDs but he used them on his own people. Irrelevant. Dictators have been butchering their own people for as long as there have been dictators, and the US has never lifted a finger. Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan...the list goes on.

This particular dictator just happens to have been perched on the second largest oil reserve on the planet. This is not a coincidence.

As for me, I'll believe the Bush Administration is truly interested in liberating oppressed people on the day that US Marines start landing in Darfur...or Pyongyang.

[aikido7]

Irrelevant. Dictators have been butchering their own people for as long as there have been dictators, and the US has never lifted a finger. Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan...the list goes on.

This particular dictator just happens to have been perched on the second largest oil reserve on the planet. This is not a coincidence.

As for me, I'll believe the Bush Administration is truly interested in liberating oppressed people on the day that US Marines start landing in Darfur...or Pyongyang.Y' know something, Gerald? You may be onto something here....

[HerodionRomulus]

As for me, I'll believe the Bush Administration is truly interested in liberating oppressed people on the day that US Marines start landing in Darfur...or Pyongyang.

or HAVANA.

[lovemeorhateme]

A few points to make here.

1. In the British Press, which is completely free of government control, it was reported in May, that the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had sent a memo to the Prime Minister, saything that the war in Iraq, if it took place, would be illegal (The memo was sent just days before the invasion began). Lord Goldsmith also added that intelligence was to 'inconclusive' to justify any war. Remember, 200,000 US troops were deployed to Iraq, but, so were 50,000 UK troops.

2. The British people were always against the war, and always believed it was for oil (90% of the population according to all polls). About one month before invasion, one million people protested outside Parliament about the war.

3. Al Quaeda don't technically exist as governments would have us believe. What does exist, is dangerous, yes, but, the governments saying that there is a completely organised world-wide terrorist organisation with cells in every country is a lie. Its called the power of nightmares. Governments use nightmares to scare people. They create a fear, so they can have their own way, and make out that you are being 'protected' from it. 9/11 was a terrible tradegy. However, there is a lot more to 9/11 than Bush will admit. In Europe right now, we see Bush as a bigger terrorist than anyone else. We see him as the most dangerous man on the planet. And the USA's reputation, has, to a lot of people, been ruined by Bush. The USA is no longer seen as a peaceful, just nation. It's seen as a warmonger.

4. If you want to start getting to the truth, I siggest you start by watching Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. Also, a book I reccomend called Al Queda by Jason Burke.

Thats all for now,
Petey

[simply one]

A few points to make here.

1. In the British Press, which is completely free of government control, it was reported in May, that the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had sent a memo to the Prime Minister, saything that the war in Iraq, if it took place, would be illegal (The memo was sent just days before the invasion began). Lord Goldsmith also added that intelligence was to 'inconclusive' to justify any war. Remember, 200,000 US troops were deployed to Iraq, but, so were 50,000 UK troops.

2. The British people were always against the war, and always believed it was for oil (90% of the population according to all polls). About one month before invasion, one million people protested outside Parliament about the war..

Prepare to get some stone-walling, insults, and a head-in-the-sand response from the righties here. If you are especially correct, they may use some :darwinsm:

3. Al Quaeda don't technically exist as governments would have us believe. What does exist, is dangerous, yes, but, the governments saying that there is a completely organised world-wide terrorist organisation with cells in every country is a lie. Its called the power of nightmares. Governments use nightmares to scare people. They create a fear, so they can have their own way, and make out that you are being 'protected' from it. 9/11 was a terrible tradegy. However, there is a lot more to 9/11 than Bush will admit. In Europe right now, we see Bush as a bigger terrorist than anyone else. We see him as the most dangerous man on the planet. And the USA's reputation, has, to a lot of people, been ruined by Bush. The USA is no longer seen as a peaceful, just nation. It's seen as a warmonger.

True. Scary. Orwellian.

4. If you want to start getting to the truth, I siggest you start by watching Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. Also, a book I reccomend called Al Queda by Jason Burke.

Thats all for now,
Petey

Prepare for a rightie assault, comrade!

[lovemeorhateme]

Don't worry, I'm ready for the righties. I know just how to deal with them lol. I am a definite lefty :) I am very liberal in my views. And I don't take what any government says as the truth, unless I can prove it, particularly in this modern age. George W. Bush is a liar. Tony Blair is a liar. Plain and simple. The only difference is that us British didn't swallow the crap that our leader fed us, where as many (not all), but many gullible righties did.

[Frank Ernest]

The unmasked liar and boy-man Oliver North giving self-serving jingoism to smear a truth-teller? That's about as honorable as Karl Rove smugging that liberals want to kill US soliders and give Osama bin Laden "therapy"!!!
Great! You used some old-timey :Commie: lingo! :up:

Why doesn't Ollie ('semper fi") North get to the real heart of the matter here: Distract from evil by manufacturing more of it.
WOW! Totally brainless aphorism. Yahoo! :BRAVO:

Chaining people hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water for 18-24 hourse is certainly not a tactic of totalitarian regimes.
There is no "e" as the end of the word "hours." :nono:

Allowing them to defecate and urinate on themselves is not what the Nazis did to human beings.
they asked permission? :confused:

Temperatures made so cold that another naked person is shaking with cold or turning the temperature up to over 100 degrees in a non-ventilated room is certainly not like an experiment of Dr. Joseph Mengele at German death camps.
You're too young to have worked for Mengele, but I suspect you would have. :up:

And no, the Pol Pot lemmings would never leave a prisoner chained hand and foot and left naked on a tile floor to pull his hair out listening to loud rap music. After all, Frank, rap music was not even AROUND when Hitler and Pol Pot protected THEIR countries from enemies!
I believe that is a racist statement. the brothers won't like you dissin' rap. :nono:

Pretending to hear criticism of our torture policy as an attack on this country and/or our troops is a show of incredible cowardice, Bud.
:darwinsm: As is your incessant lying. :nananana:

[Skeptic]

Tony Blair is a liar. Plain and simple. The only difference is that us British didn't swallow the crap that our leader fed us, where as many (not all), but many gullible righties did. I agree with you about Bush and Blair being liars. Yet, Blair won re-election, as did Bush. I know how Bush got re-elected. But why in the hell did Blair get re-elected? It appears that Blair's propaganda machine was as effective as Bush's. What's your assessment?

[lovemeorhateme]

I agree with you about Bush and Blair being liars. Yet, Blair won re-election, as did Bush. I know how Bush got re-elected. But why in the hell did Blair get re-elected? It appears that Blair's propaganda machine was as effective as Bush's. What's your assessment?

Well, as for Blair being voted in. He is unpopular with the British public, but, his party are moderatly popular. It's to do with the way voting works in this country. It's a very strange way lol. Yes, the UK is a democratic nation. But, the voting system is not proportianal representation, which, can be unfair, if it was, then Labour probably wouldnt be in power now, and it would probably be the Liberal Democrats in power.

[aikido7]

...us British didn't swallow the crap that our leader fed us, where as many (not all), but many gullible righties did.Belief often prevents citizens looking at facts--especially here in the United States. Maybe it's the patriarchial "Father Knows Best" idea, where authority is always right, Mommy and Daddy are always right--even if they are horrific abusers.

Anyway, if you read between the lines, fantasy becomes belief and the belief becomes belligerant--a sure sign that deep down, it's not so really very sure of itself.

[Skeptic]

Well, as for Blair being voted in. He is unpopular with the British public, but, his party are moderatly popular. It's to do with the way voting works in this country. It's a very strange way lol. Yes, the UK is a democratic nation. But, the voting system is not proportianal representation, which, can be unfair, if it was, then Labour probably wouldnt be in power now, and it would probably be the Liberal Democrats in power. ===========================
2005 British General Election

Article by Harold Clarke, David Sanders, Marianne Stewart, Paul Whiteley

The 2005 British general election was held on May 5th. The election pitted the governing Labour Party against two principal rivals, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and several minor parties. In the run-up to the preceding (2001) general election, Labour was in a strong position-- the economy was robust, pluralities of voters were Labour party identifiers and favored Labour on key issues, and the party leader, Tony Blair, was viewed as having a massive "competence edge" over his rivals. Four years later, Labour's popularity had declined substantially, and the British Election Study (see box) and public opinion polls showed that the opposition Conservatives had a slight lead over Labour (36.6% to 35.0%) when the campaign began. Although Labour remained the favorite, there was a real possibility of a "Tory trend," and that Mr. Blair and his colleagues might lose their parliamentary majority.

There were two principal reasons why Labour's prospects for a third consecutive victory were not assured. First, the issue mix had changed since 2001. "9/11" and subsequent terrorist incidents had spotlighted the issue of immigration. Many British voters view immigration, crime, and terrorism as a complex of inter-related problems. The Conservatives worked to exploit this linkage by making immigration a focal point of their 2005 campaign. They charged that increased crime and terrorist threats were direct results of an uncontrolled flood of undesirable aliens, and that Labour had failed to safeguard the country's borders. The salience of the crime-immigration-terrorism issue complex reduced the impact of issues such as public service delivery and the state of the economy--which worked in Labour's favor.

A second reason why Labour's prospects were more problematic than before concerns changes in their leader's image. Before the invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair strongly endorsed the commitment of British troops. He echoed President Bush's rationale for the war, arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed, and intended to use, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The issue deeply divided the electorate and the party. Labour's left-wing strongly opposed the conflict, and prominent cabinet ministers and party activists came out against it. The subsequent failure to find WMD's and the widely publicized suicide of British weapons expert, David Kelly, turned public opinion firmly against the war. Blair's image was severely tarnished, with critics branding him as the lying lapdog of a warmongering American president.

Although important, Labour's negatives were not the whole story of the 2005 election. A plurality of the electorate continued to identify with the party. Sizable numbers of voters were still concerned about classic valence issues such as health care and education, and many were convinced that Labour would do the best job in providing these and other cherished public services. In addition, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown was very popular and widely seen as the architect of the sustained economic growth that enabled Labour to pump large sums into the public sector. And, although Tony Blair was heartily disliked by many, his chief rival, Conservative Leader Michael Howard, was even less popular. Moreover, despite his perceived faults, a substantial plurality still believed that Blair remained the best choice to be prime minister.

Finally, Labour had an "ace in the hole" in the form of its electoral system. Given the geographical distribution of party support, Britain's single-member plurality system was guaranteed to work in Labour's favor. Indeed, Labour's national vote share could fall to 35%, or perhaps slightly lower, and the party could still win a parliamentary majority.

Finally, Labour had an "ace in the hole" in the form of its electoral system. Given the geographical distribution of party support, Britain's single-member plurality system was guaranteed to work in Labour's favor. Indeed, Labour's national vote share could fall to 35%, or perhaps slightly lower, and the party could still win a parliamentary majority.

This mix of forces at work clearly indicated that the 2005 election would be a closer call than 2001. In the event it was. As election day approached, it became obvious that the Conservatives' negative campaign was not working; the party was trending downward in the polls, and the Liberal Democrats were moving smartly upward. Most important, Labour had regained the lead, with all the election-eve polls showing the party having 35% to 38% vote share. This was hardly impressive, but it was enough.

On election day, voter turnout was low: less than one percent above the dismal 59.4% recorded in 2001. However, when the ballots were counted Labour had captured 35.2% of the vote, with the Conservative and Liberal Democrat shares being 32.3% and 22.0%, respectively. Filtered through the heavily biased electoral system, these numbers translated into 355 parliamentary seats for Labour, 197 for the Conservatives, 62 for the Liberal Democrats, and 28 for various other parties. Labour thus remained in office with a much reduced, but working, majority of 66 seats. Speaking after the election results were announced, Prime Minister Blair remarked that he had heard what the voters were saying. How he interprets the message of the 2005 election and what it will mean for government policy over the next four years remains to be seen.

Source (http://www.apsanet.org/section_577.cfm)

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:

[lovemeorhateme]

I would agree with what you quoted about the 2005 UK General Election. Not that I like it. The Liberal Democrats are the only ones to ever try to do some real good to this country.

[aikido7]

Check this out:

http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/news/1/

(Be sure to use your volume controls, if you have them!)

The awesome power of humor showing the truth that "the more things change, the more things stay the same."

[simply one]

As far as satire goes, that is some of the best that I have ever read.

:thumb:

[aikido7]

Let me know of any others you find. Humor is a great bridge to understanding different points of view without feeling threatened, since a lot of the "self-willed blindness" and anger about the idea of impeaching this president is a cover for fear.

Also, anything else you find that might be pertinent--not necessarily something that bolsters a position but any information germane to this thread that brings understanding and forces us to think....

__________________________________

The Downing Street Memos and the History of Smoking Guns
Alexander Cockburn

Now remember, my friends, the Downing Street memos are NOT smoking guns. It’s true they show with unparalleled clarity just how the co-conspirators of the Iraq war were talking among themselves, but all the same , they are NOT smoking guns. Why not? Simple. Let me give you my Maxim of the Day: History is one big smoking gun and the function of the official press is to say this isn’t so.

As long as I’ve lived in America I’ve enjoyed the comic ritual known as the “hunt for the smoking gun,” a process by which our official press tries to inoculate itself and its readers from political and economic realities.

The big smoking-gun question back in 1973 and 1974 concerned Richard Nixon. Back and forth the ponderous debate raged in editorial columns and news stories: was this or that disclosure a “smoking gun”?

Fairly early on in the game, it was clear to about 95 percent of the population that Nixon was a liar, a crook and guilty as charged. But the committee rooms on Capitol Hill and Sunday talk shows were still filled with people holding up guns with smoke pouring from the barrel telling each other solemnly that No, the appearance of smoke and stench of recently detonated cordite notwithstanding, this was not yet the absolute, definitive, smoking gun.

So it became clear that the great smoking-gun hunt was really about timing, about gauging the correct temperature of the political waters.

Then suddenly, in the late summer of 1974, that impalpable entity known as elite sentiment sensed that the scandal was becoming subversive of public order, that it was time to throw Nixon overboard and move on. A “new” tape—though scores of others had already made Nixon’s guilt plain—was swiftly identified as “the smoking gun” and presto! Nixon was on the next plane to California.

In the mid-70s post-Watergate euphoria, smoking guns were in fashion. In the Church intelligence committee hearings they actually held up a gun to demonstrate the profuse, well-documented efforts of the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro.

In other hearing rooms witnesses testified that multinational corporations offered bribes to win business.

Appropriately enough, it was a newspaper publisher who stepped forward in the late fall of 1974 to announce that the smoking gun show was now officially closed.

At the annual meeting of the Magazine Publishers’ Association Katharine Graham, boss of the Washington Post Company, sternly cautioned her fellow czars of the communication industry, (many of them bribed to endorse Nixon in 1972 by his gift of the monopoly license to print money known as Joint Operating Agreements).

“The press these days,” Mrs. Graham declared, “should... be rather careful about its role. We may have acquired some tendencies about over-involvement that we had better overcome. We had better not yield to the temptation to go on refighting the next war [sic] and see conspiracy and cover-up where they do not exist.”

By 1975 smoking guns were a thing of the past. The coup de grace was PBS’s McNeil/Lehrer Report which started in October 1975, dedicated to the proposition that there are two sides to every question, and reality is not an exciting affair of smoking guns, crooked businessmen and lying politicians but a dull continuum in which all involved are struggling disinterestedly for the public weal.
In this new, prudent post-Watergate era, which has stretched through to the present day, there were no smoking guns. It wasn’t long before those documented attempts to assassinate Castro became “alleged attempts” or, the final fate of many a smoking gun, “an old story”.

CIA involvement in opium smuggling in South East Asia? There were smoking guns aplenty. In a 1987 interview for a Frontline documentary Tony Po gave an on-camera interview confirming that in his capacity as a CIA officer he had given the mercenary general Vang Pao an airplane with which to transport heroin because Vang Pao’s use of the CIA airfleet was proving embarrassing. “We painted it nice and fancy,” Po reminisced jovially.

These days, the CIA’s complicity in shuttling heroin that came home to America in body bags from Vietnam has retreated to the decorous status of being an “allegation” and, simultaneously, “an old story”.

Iran/contra, cocaine-for-arms shuttles supervised by the CIA? More smoking guns in every filing cabinet, and all over Oliver North’s diary. Ten years later Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News fished out further smoking guns and was rewarded by having his career destroyed by the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times. When the hubbub died down the CIA’s Inspector General admitted in his reports that yes, there were smoking guns, but the press only read the CIA’s press releases, which strenuously maintained the opposite.

It was in the Reagan era that the smoking-gun lobby got decisively routed. Month after month the official press would write respectfully about Reagan’s press conferences as though the President was a competent captain of the national ship instead of a fogged-up fantasist.

The coup de grace came in Clinton time, when the hunt for smoking guns became either incomprehensible (Jeff Gerth’s stories on Whitewater) or tacky (Clinton’s physical interactions with Monica Lewinsky). Special Prosecutor Ken Starr cried out that Yes, he had the smoking gun. The people looked at the stained dress he proudly flourished, and said, If that’s a smoking gun, we’re not interested.

There are enough smoking guns in the Iraq saga to stock a whole new national museum. It’s what makes the current muttering in the official press about the Downing Street memos so comical, with all the huff and puff about the “blogosphere” and how yes, this is an old story, and an “uncorroborated” one, (like all those stories from detainees about desecration of the Koran).

What’s striking to me is how querulous and old-fashioned those “old story” put-downs about the Downing Street memos by Purdom and others in the New York Times, or Howard Kurtz and Dana Milbank in the Washington Post sound, rather like very old uncles wagging their fingers at naughty little children and admonishing them to stay quiet until all the facts are in.

But the facts are in and the naughty children have the public megaphones. The rules of the game are changing. So what happens when fewer and fewer people take the official press seriously, or even read it?

www.thenation.com

[On Fire]

Daily Impeachment Check: Nope, not today.

[simply one]

Daily Congress check: still controlled by right-wing zealots.

Days til 2006 election: 498.

Who's up for reelection?

Senate = 15 republicans, 17 democrats, 1 independent
House = everyone

we shall see what happens after the new Congress is sworn in in January 2007. I can only hope that Americans will see reason, and look through the smoke screen of fear and partisian politics which the right-wing has diligently constructed.

[On Fire]

Mid-day check - STILL no impeachment.

[Holly]

Daily Impeachment Check: Nope, not today.
Nope, not today, but on the off chance you care, here's something that did happen today: A girl named Holly Charette, age 21, who was a former high school cheerleader from Cranston, Rhode Island became the first female marine and the 1735th American who died in Iraq because Bush lied to us. Bush has two daughters about the same age, but if he is planning to send one of them over there to take Holly Charette's place, I haven't heard about it. Maybe you can include that in your daily update. Bush won't even allow the flag-draped caskets of our fallen soldiers to be photographed, out of fear that public sentiment will turn against his war (which it now has), so it is little wonder that people like you can distance yourselves from the shocking reality of the needless violent deaths of so many. I invite you to visit this web site to read a little about the people who have been willing to sacrifice their lives to serve this country. Maybe then you will not consider Bush's betrayal of them to be a matter to trivialize in the way that you continue to do on this board.
http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/

[On Fire]

Can you wax as poetically over the 58,000 American killed in Viet Nam, commie?

[Gerald]

Can you wax as poetically over the 58,000 American killed in Viet Nam, commie?Considering that Nixon (hardly a liberal) didn't have the will to stay the course no matter what the cost, those 58,000 died in vain.

Wouldn't you agree?

After all, we could've won Vietnam...if we'd really wanted to...

[Holly]

Can you wax as poetically over the 58,000 American killed in Viet Nam, commie?
Yes, absolutely. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise, if you have understood anything I have written here. I just don't want to see another 58,000 Americans killed in Iraq over the course of the next 12 or so years that Rumsfeld recently estimated that the "insurgency" would be active. (This is the same Rumsfeld who dismissed our soldiers as "fungible", and shrugged that we go to war with the army we have, not with the army we would want.) You can try to change the subject all you want, and relive tragic errors of US policy from 40 years ago, or you can face the fact some young American will die today because Bush lied to us. More than 1,500 have been killed since Bush swaggered onto the deck of an aircraft carrier and announced "Mission Accomplished." You seem to imply that 1735 (and more dying daily) is insignificant in comparison to the carnage in Viet Nam, but I assure you that Holly Charette's parents, fiance, and other loved ones are devastated today. All because Bush chose, cold bloodedly, to put that young lance corporal, who was serving as a mail clerk, in harm's way. He trivializes it, too, as you continue to do. He thought it quite hilarious to show up at a fancy dinner in Washington last year with a comical video of himself searching for WMDs under the bed, etc., while young Americans were actually over there dying, in search of something he knew did not exist.

[aikido7]

Bush's hypocrisy is nauseating. Rule by the father reigns supreme in American culture, so you can't really question authority without being branded unpatriotic. And since the average American reads at a fifth-grade level and constructs a comfortable reality in black and white, the president will continue to have his supporters and spinners.

What a pathetic, shallow hypocrite he is.

[Frank Ernest]

Bush's hypocrisy is nauseating. Rule by the father reigns supreme in American culture, so you can't really question authority without being branded unpatriotic. And since the average American reads at a fifth-grade level and constructs a comfortable reality in black and white, the president will continue to have his supporters and spinners.

What a pathetic, shallow hypocrite he is.
:darwinsm: Is this why Clinton got elected twice?

[Frank Ernest]

Considering that Nixon (hardly a liberal) didn't have the will to stay the course no matter what the cost, those 58,000 died in vain.

Wouldn't you agree?
Look at the bills Nixon signed into law. He was hardly the conservative you'd like to think he was. It wasn't Nixon who didn't have the will, it was the American people who lost their resolve.

After all, we could've won Vietnam...if we'd really wanted to...
Exactly.

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: Is this why Clinton got elected twice?Ah. The "Bu-bu-bu-but Clinton...!" defense. A spin-blast from the past that is begining to look, well, kind of silly.

Clinton had an active second term (just ask Monica!). Bush is stalled, quacking like a lame duck, dead in the water.

The latest polls on Social Security show support for Bush's mangle on SS is just 31%--lower than support for Hillary's health-care reforms in 1994!

Gas prices will never get better, no matter how much kissing and hand-holding our resolute leader indulges in.

The economy is sputtering. Under Clinton our economy grew, something some of Slick Willie's detractors even now admit.

Thirty-seven per cent of Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Bush's job-approval rating is down to about the mid-fourty perecentile.

Even the GOP congress is proving to be not quite the boon it was supposed to be.

Inpeachment would be too kind--a little like giving Ted Bundy the death penalty instead of letting him watch himself rot in prison. The next years of Bush's term might show an agonizing and painful slow-motion self-destruct. More and more people are finally starting to catch on.

_____________________________________

How much does a snowflake weigh?

A little less than nothing?

The snow fell. Eventually the blizzard lessened, the flakes fell more slowly. And then they finally stopped. A final snowflake fell onto the branch of the tree. The branch creaked and snapped, and fell to the ground...
______________________________________

The winds and the rains came and the hurricane howled and tore at the earth. The mighty resolute oak tree's branches swayed and scraped at the sky until finally the large limbs snapped and gave way. With a great shudder, the oak crashed to the ground.

The grass beneath bent with the wind and the next morning its pliant blades were still there, green and wet in the sunshine...

[Frank Ernest]

Belief often prevents citizens looking at facts--especially here in the United States. Maybe it's the patriarchial "Father Knows Best" idea, where authority is always right, Mommy and Daddy are always right--even if they are horrific abusers.

Anyway, if you read between the lines, fantasy becomes belief and the belief becomes belligerant--a sure sign that deep down, it's not so really very sure of itself.
Speaking of facts ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050628-121155-4623r.htm

[Delmar]

Speaking of facts ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050628-121155-4623r.htm
There are a lot of " prove you are not still beating your wife" type accuisations comming from the commies

[Frank Ernest]

There are a lot of " prove you are not still beating your wife" type accuisations comming from the commies
:darwinsm: Yup.

[On Fire]

Holly and the rest of the commies would have us wait until New York or Dallas or Los Angeles have been turned to dust before we defend ourselves.

If you guys have a crystal ball, PLEASE SHARE IT, otherwise, SHUT THE FREAK UP!!!

[HerodionRomulus]

Speaking of facts ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050628-121155-4623r.htm

Don't forget the fact that they knew the VIP's were coming and had plenty of time to clean up the place, clean up their act and pretend it's all hunky-dory.

Another lie
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction (http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html)

[On Fire]

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction (http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html)

Do you practice selective reading?

"We found biological laboratories."

You probably think they were trying to discover a cure for the common cold. :darwinsm:

[simply one]

Holly and the rest of the commies would have us wait until New York or Dallas or Los Angeles have been turned to dust before we defend ourselves.

If you guys have a crystal ball, PLEASE SHARE IT, otherwise, SHUT THE FREAK UP!!!

HOW HARD IS THIS TO REALIZE: THE WAR IN IRAQ IS NOT MAKING US ANY SAFER!

The Iraqi War plays right into the terrorists hands, giving force behind their accusations of America's imperialist goals. The terrorists are being able up their recuitment throughout the Middle East:

Iraq War Boosts Militants' Recruiting

By KATHY GANNON, Associated Press Writer

KARACHI, Pakistan - Riding a wave of anti-American sentiment, outlawed Islamic extremist organizations that were routed by the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in 2001 are making a comeback.

Recruitment in Pakistan of potential terrorists appears to be on the rise. Militant leaders freed from house arrest have returned to the mosques to rally the faithful against the United States.

Muslim radicals are feeding on anger over the war in Iraq to regroup and revitalize, raising the threat of more anti-U.S. terrorism around the world.

"They are defiant. They are angry. More and more people are angry," said Abu Mujahed, a militant whose name is a nom de guerre.

He said new recruits are being found by way of Internet chat rooms that deal with the war on Iraq and "American aggression."

Analysts say the Iraq war is emboldening militants, who believe the United States is distracted by the fighting.

"Militants know that the United States is fully engaged in Iraq and that has diluted their focus on the war on terror," said Riffat Hussein, a political analyst.

from: http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id61.html

No one has a crystal ball, and no one is saying that we have to wait until our country is severely attacked (again) to take action. But, what we are doing is not stopping terrorism. The country is not significantly safer today than it was in 2001.

You use sensationalism and fear to try to convert people to your side. But the facts and tre truth will always win out over your rhetoric and fear.

[Gerald]

Holly and the rest of the commies would have us wait until New York or Dallas or Los Angeles have been turned to dust before we defend ourselves.Considering what wretched hives of scum and villainy those cities are, it wouldn't be that big a loss. Do you happen to have friends or relatives living in those places? I don't.

Just think of how many murderers, liars, thieves, fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, apostates, etc. would cease to exist if those cities disappeared. They would number in the millions.

You can't say that wouldn't be a good thing...

[simply one]

Do you practice selective reading?

"We found biological laboratories."

You probably think they were trying to discover a cure for the common cold. :darwinsm:

hmmm.... the only problem is, exactly zero evidence of WMD has been found in Iraq. But, obviously you follow the mantra "if big daddy says it, it must be true". One bit of advice for you: examine the facts and stop making yourself look like a :dunce:

[death2impiety]

But the facts and tre truth will always win out over your rhetoric and fear.

Right back atcha...the truth of the matter is all the accounts of the Iraqi contigent are subjective and open to interpretation...Erradicating a tyranical leader and seeking to put an end to a regime who means us harm is insurance for the survival of the freedom we enjoy. I know it's a cliche by now, but its a cliche worth fighting for.

[On Fire]

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS NOT MAKING US ANY SAFER!

Color enhanced for commies:

PROVE IT!!!

When's the last time a Godless heathen took over an American airplane? When's the last time a plane crashed into a skyscraper? When's the last time Osama Yomama was seen outside of a cave or hole in the ground?

[Gerald]

Right back atcha...the truth of the matter is all the accounts of the Iraqi contigent are subjective and open to interpretation...Erradicating a tyranical leader and seeking to put an end to a regime who means us harm is insurance for the survival of the freedom we enjoy. I know it's a cliche by now, but its a cliche worth fighting for.Russia, China and North Korea are just as tyrannical, but nobody seems particularly eager to pick a fight with them.

I wonder why...? :think:

[On Fire]

Considering what wretched hives of scum and villainy those cities are, it wouldn't be that big a loss. Do you happen to have friends or relatives living in those places? I don't.

Just think of how many murderers, liars, thieves, fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, apostates, etc. would cease to exist if those cities disappeared. They would number in the millions.

You can't say that wouldn't be a good thing...
Same act, different day. :yawn:

[simply one]

Right back atcha...the truth of the matter is all the accounts of the Iraqi contigent are subjective and open to interpretation...Erradicating a tyranical leader and seeking to put an end to a regime who means us harm is insurance for the survival of the freedom we enjoy. I know it's a cliche by now, but its a cliche worth fighting for.

1) There are plenty of regimes that wish us harm, and many are FAR more dangerous than Iraq (ie North Korea and Iran)

2) The country is not significantly safer now than it was in 2001. And the war in Iraq is making us less, not more, safe.

[On Fire]

1) There are plenty of regimes that wish us harm, and many are FAR more dangerous than Iraq (ie North Korea and Iran)
Allah's Hooligans attacked us.

2) The country is not significantly safer now than it was in 2001. And the war in Iraq is making us less, not more, safe.
Baseless assertion extraodinaire!

[simply one]

Allah's Hooligans attacked us.

"Allah's Hooligans" were not from Iraq. The 9/11 terrorists were almost all SAUDI ARABIAN! Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?

Baseless assertion extraodinaire!

Right back at you!

*big letters don't cover up the fact that you're still wrong

[Gerald]

Same act, different day. :yawn:I'm the Resident Fiend, OF; it's my job. :kiss:

[Gerald]

Allah's Hooligans attacked us.
Allah's Hooligans: Any who subscribe to the belief "There is no god but and Mohammad is his prophet."

[simply one]

Muslims could just as easily make claims of "Jesus' Hooligans" ie anyone who believes there is nothing but the Christian God and Jesus as savior.

Besides, even Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet.

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

because iraq finances terrorism and had the 4th largest army in the world.

[simply one]

because iraq finances terrorism and had the 4th largest army in the world.

Please verify your claims.

Links to reliable websites would be great.

[On Fire]

Please verify your claims.

YOU asking for proof??? I asked you to share your crystal ball and you have yet to do so.

[On Fire]

"Allah's Hooligans" were not from Iraq. The 9/11 terrorists were almost all SAUDI ARABIAN! Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?


Nationality had nothing to do with it. Saddam and his mama Osama built the training camps.

[Gerald]

Muslims could just as easily make claims of "Jesus' Hooligans" ie anyone who believes there is nothing but the Christian God and Jesus as savior.That was my point. Remember, it was OF who started making noise about "Allah's hooligans"...

BTW, what do you think Muslims call Christian missionaries...? :chuckle:

[On Fire]

Allah's Hooligans: Any who subscribe to the belief "There is no god but and Mohammad is his prophet."
:confused:

[simply one]

Nationality had nothing to do with it. Saddam and his mama Osama built the training camps.

prove it.

and, about facts, myself, aikido, and especially skeptic have posted dozens of links. Perhaps if you actually read through them, you would understand.

[simply one]

:confused:

He's the resident fiend, remember? saying things like that is his job.

[On Fire]

That was my point. Remember, it was OF who started making noise about "Allah's hooligans"...

BTW, what do you think Muslims call Christian missionaries...? :chuckle:

TruthSmackers?

[Gerald]

:confused:What, you don't believe that every Muslim on Earth is a potential terrorist?

Where's your backbone, man? Don't you realize the enemy is everywhere, and could be anyone?

[Gerald]

TruthSmackers?You misspelled "worm food"...

[death2impiety]

[QUOTE=simply one]1) There are plenty of regimes that wish us harm, and many are FAR more dangerous than Iraq (ie North Korea and Iran)

Yes, but North Korea makes delicious chocolate chip cookies and Iran is where all the world's cat nip is produced.

(Sorry, levity seems necessary sometimes...)

2) The country is not significantly safer now than it was in 2001. And the war in Iraq is making us less, not more, safe.

I disagree.

Fact is, more danger will always remain regardless of the action we take, this doesnt mean we stand by and let people kill thousands of our citizens. Your cowardice makes me sick. I bet you're a pro-choicer too. Kill innocent babies but let the evil dictators run a muck. We take it one step at a time, one evil man falls and we're more secure than we would be with him out on the run. We've shown that we mean business and our rep with would be terrorists is better at a "will retaliate if provoked" level than at a "will commit adultery if provoked" level. But you're going to believe whatever you want to believe about this and continue to debate your opinions heatedly regardless of what anyone tells you. Don't believe everything the media tells you...they're as con-Bush as you are...its a perpetual Bush hating machine.

In Christ,
B

[simply one]

You misspelled "worm food"...

:darwinsm:

[simply one]

[QUOTE]

I disagree.

Fact is, more danger will always remain regardless of the action we take, this doesnt mean we stand by and let people kill thousands of our citizens. Your cowardice makes me sick. I bet you're a pro-choicer too. Kill innocent babies but let the evil dictators run a muck. We take it one step at a time, one evil man falls and we're more secure than we would be with him out on the run. We've shown that we mean business and our rep with would be terrorists is better at a "will retaliate if provoked" level than at a "will commit adultery if provoked" level. But you're going to believe whatever you want to believe about this and continue to debate your opinions heatedly regardless of what anyone tells you. Don't believe everything the media tells you...they're as con-Bush as you are...its a perpetual Bush hating machine.

In Christ,
B

I am by no means saying we should stand by. I am saying that the $200 billion + that we have spent in Iraq could have been spent on security at home instead of being squandered overseas. If we focused on making our country more secure at home, instead of perpetuating the image of imperialist, anti-Muslim America, we would go a lot farther to becoming more secure.

War in Afghanistan: perfectly justifiable, made USA safer

War in Iraq: unjustifiable, made USA less safe, gave more fodder for the terrorists to use for recruitment.

The invasion of Iraq has not shown that "we mean business". Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist recruiters probably bless the invasion under their breath because America is proving their anti-American points everyday.

And those last lines: You're still harping on the vast left-wing conspiracy in the media? You say I shouldn't trust what the media tells me? I try to get facts from mulitiple sources, which are as impartial as I can find.

I think you need to stop getting all your news from FOX :kookoo:

anyways, I'm leaving for a while, so I'll be back to posting later.

[Holly]

Nationality had nothing to do with it. Saddam and his mama Osama built the training camps.

I always assumed your nic had something to do with presenting yourself as "on fire with the Holy Spirit", but now I see it is short for "Liar, liar, pants on fire." On the other hand, maybe you are just exceedingly gullible and misinformed. Here is a US Air Force web site that might help you understand a little more about islam and international terrorism so you won't have to look so silly and won't have to resort to ever-larger and brightly colored type fonts to conceal your lack of substance and truth.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cps-terr.htm#islam

[On Fire]

:vomit:
Spare me. That link contained nothing I don't already know.

[On Fire]

[QUOTE=death2impiety]
Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist recruiters...
And we care about how many Allah Hooligans blow themselves up because....???

[On Fire]

You misspelled "worm food"...
Are you or are you not "worm food"?

[On Fire]

Wow...I go to one meeting and the commies try to take over the place.

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

I am by no means saying we should stand by. I am saying that the $200 billion + that we have spent in Iraq could have been spent on security at home instead of being squandered overseas. If we focused on making our country more secure at home, instead of perpetuating the image of imperialist, anti-Muslim America, we would go a lot farther to becoming more secure.

iraq loves us, we will never be secure, the best defensive is a good offense

[Gerald]

Are you or are you not "worm food"?No, I'm not a Christian missionary. :chuckle:

[Holly]

Spare me. That link contained nothing I don't already know.
That's a load of :cow: , and you're fooling nobody. To bad you didn't take the time to read it. You really might have learned something, but I guess that would have required some effort and intellectual honesty. Btw, despite your pathetic pleas, I have no intention of "sparing you" "shutting up", or "giving you a break." You will just have to learn to hold up your end of a debate. :idea:

[On Fire]

No, I'm not a Christian missionary. :chuckle:
You KNOW what I meant.

[On Fire]

debate.
What debate? You and the rest of the commies are deluded, there's no doubt about it.

[Gerald]

You KNOW what I meant.:chuckle:

[Monty Python]

'M not dead yet!

[/Monty Python]

:D

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

You KNOW what I meant.



what exactly did you mean?

[On Fire]

what exactly did you mean?
Gerald, being your everyday, run of the mill atheist, believes that when he dies he will become nothing but worm food.

Or :spam:.

[aikido7]

YOU asking for proof??? I asked you to share your crystal ball and you have yet to do so.A crystal ball???

Not necessary. Just look at the past, be willing to confront your comfortable notions of reality and question everything you read and hear. That's all that's needed....

America is now negotiating with the terrorists, according to the Secretary of Defense.

We traded weapons with Iranian terrorists during Reagan's presidency.

The Reagan White House called the Taliban the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

The neocons joined forces with the terrorists in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Both the Bush government and the Islamists share a hostility to the Middle East's authoritarian dynasties. What is more, both the neocons and the terrorists view Western liberalism with mistrust--especially traditional marriage values.

Our government knew about the September attacks well in advance. If Bush did not, Cheney certainly did.

[Gerald]

Gerald, being your everyday, run of the mill atheist, believes that when he dies he will become nothing but worm food.Given that that is what has happened to every single dead person I've ever seen or heard of, what conclusion am I supposed to draw?

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

Given that that is what has happened to every single dead person I've ever seen or heard of, what conclusion am I supposed to draw?


lol

[Frank Ernest]

Holly and the rest of the commies would have us wait until New York or Dallas or Los Angeles have been turned to dust before we defend ourselves.

If you guys have a crystal ball, PLEASE SHARE IT, otherwise, SHUT THE FREAK UP!!!
:darwinsm: It is unlikely you'll get either of your wishes -- especially the second one.

[simply one]

[QUOTE=simply one]
And we care about how many Allah Hooligans blow themselves up because....???


because in the process, they are blowing up Americans. :doh:

You're closemindedness and blindness to what is going on around you is truly frightening...

[On Fire]

A crystal ball???

Yes, your crystal ball. How else could you say that the US is less safe today than it was pre-9/11 unless you were aware of an imminent attack? Unless, of course, you are one of Allah's Hooligans.

Deluded.

[On Fire]

[QUOTE=On Fire]
because in the process, they are blowing up Americans. :doh:

You're closemindedness and blindness to what is going on around you is truly frightening...
Be very afraid. :darwinsm:

Let's see....what is going on around me....Allah's Hooligans are strapping explosives to themselves and walking into stores and restaurants and blowing themselves up, taking with them many of their Musslim brethren and, sometimes, an American or two. They were doing this long before we kicked Saddam's butt.

Your idea of letting Saddam continue to kill his citizens, using soccer fields for executions, march his army into neighboring countries on a drunken whim is supposed to be a valid alternative? :Patrol:

[On Fire]

Given that that is what has happened to every single dead person I've ever seen or heard of, what conclusion am I supposed to draw?

Use all of your senses - if you still can.

[Gerald]

Use all of your senses - if you still can.
I have only five means of gathering sensory data, and none of them register a dead person as being anything other than inanimate matter.

[Holly]

... letting Saddam .... march his army into neighboring countries on a drunken whim....

Just out of curiosity, Fire, were you homeschooled, or can we blame the public schools for your appalling ignorance on almost any subject that comes up? Again, I offer you a website from a very conservative source (in this case, the U.S. Army series on individual foreign countries) to help you understand the world you live in. If you bother to read it, you might actually see that what was going on when Iraq invaded Kuwait was something other than a "drunken whim" (pay close attention to the part about the conflict surrounding the Ar Rumaylah oil field). To understand something doesn't imply approving of it. I certainly don't approve of what Saddam did, either, but I want to be able to discuss it factually. I would also suggest that you damage your credibility as a Christian or as a legitimate representative of any other beliefs you may hold when you put forward shoddy, shallow, easily discredited propaganda on other topics. If you are so demonstrably wrong, and so determined to cling to obvious falsehoods, why would anyone be inclined to believe anything else you say?
http://countrystudies.us/persian-gulf-states/32.htm

[Gerald]

I certainly don't approve of what Saddam did, either, but I want to be able to discuss it factually.Oh, come on! It's common knowledge that Saddam was as dangerous as Cobra Commander, and that he routinely tortured kittens and puppies, as well as eating Christian babies... ;)

[On Fire]

why would anyone be inclined to believe anything else you say?
The only people I'm concerned with are the 4 or 5 commies posting in this thread. You hold a minority opinion yet you believe you are "right". Why don't you guys just get a room and commisserate all you want?

[Holly]

The only people I'm concerned with are the 4 or 5 commies posting in this thread. You hold a minority opinion yet you believe you are "right". Why don't you guys just get a room and commisserate all you want?
It's much more entertaining to present you with facts and watch you sputter and squirm. :banana:

[On Fire]

Your so-called facts are more genetically realted to cow poop than they are to the way things are in the world.

[allsmiles]

http://www.rense.com/general58/demand.htm

[Holly]

Your so-called facts are more genetically realted to cow poop than they are to the way things are in the world.
Can you give some specific examples of this? As you recall, earlier in this thread when I challenged you (repeatedly) you were unable to provide any examples, and ended up begging me to "give you a break." As a reminder, last time you made the mistake of responding to my challenge by trying to put other posters' words in my mouth, so don't try it this time. Just tell us what facts of mine you dispute, and back up your position with documented facts (not opinions or unsupported assertions) of your own. That is how reasonable people discuss issues and, ideally, learn from one another, not by flinging "cow poop" and going on big red letter typing tantrums.

[On Fire]

As a reminder, last time you made the mistake of responding to my challenge by trying to put other posters' words in my mouth
Tough. If you're going to play in the commie sandbox you're going to be treated like a commie. You are all the same to me. I will make no attempt to differentiate one turd from another.

[Holly]

Tough. If you're going to play in the commie sandbox you're going to be treated like a commie. You are all the same to me. I will make no attempt to differentiate one turd from another.
Do you really believe that dragging your language down to the gutter makes up for your inability to support your arguments with facts? There are a lot of things you can't differentiate, buddy, beginning with "fact" from "opinion". No need to get scatological about it, though.

[Jukia]

scatological .

Too obscure a word for him to understand.

[Gerald]

Do you really believe that dragging your language down to the gutter makes up for your inability to support your arguments with facts?Remember, OF is Saved™ and is thoroughly convinced you aren't (after all, if you were, you'd be in total agreement with everything the Bush Administration does...).

He's doing you a favor by even responding to your posts. :chuckle:

[aikido7]

People like On Fire are finding it increasingly hazardous to navigate in the post-Enlightenment world. And this is a shortcoming he also happens to share with Wahabbi Islamists. It is no linguistic accident that these kinds of "Christians" and these kinds of "Moslems" are both fundamentalists.

No matter which facts we bring to bear at the table of this forum, On Fire's belief system will never allow them to be true.

The fact that plus two will always equal four is not a fact if On Fire and the rest of the true believers have their way. Their sense of outrage (which actually masks a deep-down sense of fear and powerlessness) has no other civilizing outlet to express itself.

Strap a bomb to one's chest or strap the cockpit belts to a flight suit. Or actually follow the teachings of Christ and Mohammed. Everybody is doing the best they can.
___________________________________

And, by the way, just so we don't forget our task in this little infinitesimal slice of cyber bandwith, I repeat:

THE NEOCONS KNEW FULL WELL that:

Iraq posed no nuclear threat.

Saddam and bin Laden were not collaborating.

There were no chemical or biological weapons.

They were misleading America.

[On Fire]

Daily Impeachment Check: no, not today

[On Fire]

Iraq posed a nuclear threat.

Saddam and bin Laden were collaborating.

There were chemical and biological weapons.

They were misleading America.

At least you got one right.

[aikido7]

Daily Impeachment Check: no, not todayWhen you stick to the facts, you will always be correct, On Fire.
At least you got one right.When you wilfully misrepresent facts, you are a liar. You are misleading. Thus, your conduct and morality are impeachable. Which I just did, by the way.

Shame.

[Delmar]

People like On Fire are finding it increasingly hazardous to navigate in the post-Enlightenment world. And this is a shortcoming he also happens to share with Wahabbi Islamists. It is no linguistic accident that these kinds of "Christians" and these kinds of "Moslems" are both fundamentalists.

No matter which facts we bring to bear at the table of this forum, On Fire's belief system will never allow them to be true.

The fact that plus two will always equal four is not a fact if On Fire and the rest of the true believers have their way. Their sense of outrage (which actually masks a deep-down sense of fear and powerlessness) has no other civilizing outlet to express itself.

Strap a bomb to one's chest or strap the cockpit belts to a flight suit. Or actually follow the teachings of Christ and Mohammed. Everybody is doing the best they can.
___________________________________

And, by the way, just so we don't forget our task in this little infinitesimal slice of cyber bandwith, I repeat:

THE NEOCONS KNEW FULL WELL that:

Iraq posed no nuclear threat.

Saddam and bin Laden were not collaborating.

There were no chemical or biological weapons.

They were misleading America.
We declared war on international terrorism.
Saddam suported international terrorism.
Iran, Korea, and Syria will be delt with at the proper time.
You have to start at the start of the row to knock over all of the dominos!

[Delmar]

When you stick to the facts, you will always be correct, On Fire.
When you wilfully misrepresent facts, you are a liar. You are misleading. Thus, your conduct and morality are impeachable. Which I just did, by the way.

Shame.
Nobody really thought that was a quote from you!

[downwitkiesch05]

I was just wonderind why you needed to find a reason to complain just because John fag i mean kerry lost in the election

[aikido7]

I was just wonderind why you needed to find a reason to complain just because John fag i mean kerry lost in the electionHey, you're so right! He was a homo and doesn't deserve to live--much less lose an election.

And God bless you!

[Gerald]

I was just wonderind why you needed to find a reason to complain just because John fag i mean kerry lost in the election
Are you just flinging juvenile insults, or do you possess documentation of the homosexual proclivities you allege Kerry to have?

And no, "somebody who disagrees with me" = "fag" is not a valid equation.

[Skeptic]

Daily Impeachment Check: no, not today Daily Congress Check: still controlled by right-wingers.

[On Fire]

Daily Congress Check: still controlled by right-wingers.
:BRAVO:

[On Fire]

Daily Congress Check: still controlled by right-wingers.
:first:

[HerodionRomulus]

Oh, come on! It's common knowledge that Saddam was as dangerous as Cobra Commander, and that he routinely tortured kittens and puppies, as well as eating Christian babies... ;)

You are confused. Torturing kittens is what the current GOP Senate leader used to do.

[Gerald]

Daily Congress Check: still controlled by right-wingers.
Where "right winger" = "pew-groveling nutbag"...?

:chuckle:

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

You are confused. Torturing kittens is what the current GOP Senate leader used to do.



source?

[Gerald]

You are confused. Torturing kittens is what the current GOP Senate leader used to do.You mean he kicked the habit?

That explains the memo that crossed my desk, ordering his EAC membership to be summarily revoked... :chuckle:

[On Fire]

Did you hear the one about the man who thought Viagra was a suppository? That was me. :chuckle:

Good one, Gerald. :nono:

[simply one]

source?

:chuckle:





Daily Check on the number of facts posted by OF: still 0

Please support your claims OF, or admit that you are deluded and... dun dun dun... WRONG.

Although neither of those are very likely.

Furthermore, I prefer to keep my debate out of the gutter... its cleaner that way.

[Gerald]

Hello, my name is On Fire. I listen to crappy bands like Switchfoot, and I regularly have erotic dreams involving goats, little boys and copious amounts of Cool Whip™.
This really isn't the thread to be sharing such things, OF.

Really, you should be ashamed. :nono:

[HerodionRomulus]

source?

a 10 second google brings up this old and well-known information. Enter frist+kittens

"Frist acknowledged in a 1989 book that he routinely killed cats while an ambitious medical student at Harvard Medical School in the 1970s. His office said it had no record on how many cats died. Frist disclosed that he went to animal shelters and pretended to adopt the cats, telling shelter personnel he intended to keep them as pets. Instead he used them to sharpen his surgical skills, killing them in the process.

The newly elected leader of the Senate Republicans revealed the practice in his book "Transplant: A Heart Surgeon's Account of the Life-and-Death Dramas of the New Medicine."

"It was a heinous and dishonest thing to do," Frist wrote"

He lied, just like George II lies.