Why Bush Should be Impeached

[Skeptic]

:yawn: Don't tell me you're afraid to explain why you think it is morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that it will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future threat.

C'mon, BillyBob. Give it a try.

Finish this sentence: "I think it is morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that it will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future threat, because ...."

[Frank Ernest]

Hard to finish a sentence when it is based on lies.
:loser:

[BillyBob]

Exactly.

Here Skeppie, finish this sentence: I Skeptic, being of marginally sound mind, agree with BillyBob that socialism and liberalism as they exist today in the United States are nothing less than full blown communism. I subscribe to that ideology, although I prefer to call myself a 'Progressive' because.......

[BillyBob]

Here's another, Skeppie. I [Skeptic] hate the United States and all it stands for because.......

[aikido7]

Here's another, Skeppie. I [Skeptic] hate the United States and all it stands for because.......
Hard to finish a sentence when it is based on lies...

"Unless we ferret out the defects and errors which have proved fatal to other once vigorous civiliations, we cannot hope to strengthen our own or even to be realistic in our conception of the dangers which confront our own."
--Historian Philip Lee Ralph

http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/

"Though the mills of the gods grind slowly, Yet they grind exceeding small..."
--unknown

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle_new.asp?ArticleID=13

[simply one]

Aikido, how unPatriotic of you to expose the truth. :aikido:


It should be interesting to see how many times the Fundamentalist Right Wingers use the word "commie" in their responses. Cause everyone knows that the best way to fight the truth is with name calling, coverups, and diverting attention. :rolleyes:

anyways, kudos to you aikido, for exposing at least some truth.
-----

peace

[simply one]

Finish this sentence: "I think it is morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that it will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future threat, because ...."

Why is it so difficult to answer this truthful question? :liberals:

-we DID invade Iraq

-1671 US soldiers HAVE died as of June 6 (and over 12300 have been wounded)

-at least 22000 Iraqi civilians have been killed

-Saddam was a terrorist (according to you)

-Saddam was a dictator

-You think that the invasion was justified

So, please, enlighten all of us here at TOL exactly what the MORAL JUSTIFICATIONS were for the invasions. Thanks for your time.

-----

peace

[On Fire]

Still no impeachment. :think:

[simply one]

Still no impeachment. :think:

Possibly because the conservatives still hold sway in the Senate and House. So, basically Bush is getting away with murder (literally [think Iraqis], and figuratively)

I've got my fingers crossed for '06 though.

-----

peace

[aikido7]

Still no impeachment. :think:...and still no justification.










...could that be because there IS no justification?

[On Fire]

May I suggest http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html ....

[BillyBob]

...and still no justification.










...could that be because there IS no justification?


Saddam was a terrorist, how much more justification do you need? :doh:

[BillyBob]

Aikido, how unPatriotic of you to expose the truth. :aikido:


It should be interesting to see how many times the Fundamentalist Right Wingers use the word "commie" in their responses. Cause everyone knows that the best way to fight the truth is with name calling, coverups, and diverting attention. :rolleyes:

anyways, kudos to you aikido, for exposing at least some truth.
-----

peace


Commie. :Commie:

[Skeptic]

Saddam was a terrorist, how much more justification do you need? "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and
facts were being fixed around the policy."

-- Downing Street memo (July 23, 2002) source (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html)

[aikido7]

Saddam was a terrorist, how much more justification do you need? :doh:When you undertake a major land and air war against a sovereign nation, when there is no evidence that nation was or is an immanent threat (mushroom cloud, no mobile weapons labs, no partnership with terrorists who attacked America, etc.) you need more justification.

Bush stands naked.






Hey, dissenters: I think it's time to trot our all the evidence that REFUTES the Downing Street memo--don't you think? After all, dissent is what makes America unique, noble and free....

[Skeptic]

Bush said he was going to remove Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. So, you agreed with Bush that we needed to invade BEFORE a threat became imminent.


My (additions/comments/emphasis):

"We must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. . . . I will not wait on events, while dangers gather." -- President Bush, January 29, 2002

"For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, these strategies still apply. . . . If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. . . . We must take the battle to the enemy . . . and confront the worst threats before they emerge." -- President Bush, June 1, 2002

Anyone who believes that we can wait until we have certain knowledge that attacks are imminent has failed to connect the dots that led to September 11." -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, December 2, 2002

"Some have argued we should wait (for a threat to materialize) -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril (Bush had no such evidence), we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002

"Well, if we don't do something (attack), he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat..." -- President Bush, November 7, 2002

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" -- President Bush, January 28, 2003

"The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction (if they were ever given a chance to develop them)." -- President Bush, March 6, 2003


Remember, in March 2003, the three parts to the following equation are essentially equal:
removing Saddam = invading Iraq = killing thousands of innocent people

Therefore, when you say that we invaded Iraq because "Saddam needed to be removed from power BEFORE he became an imminent threat," this is identical to saying "we needed to kill thousands of innocent people BEFORE Saddam became an imminent threat."

Bush and company spoke in general terms, so let me do so as well. Let me ask again:
Forgetting about Iraq for a moment, is it ever morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that it will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future threat, in the absence of clear hard evidence of an existing significant imminent threat?

[Skeptic]

Is the following statement by Bush true? Or is it a lie?

"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." -- President Bush, March 17, 2003 (two days before the invasion)

Did Bush and company REALLY have "no doubt" whatsoever? How can the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering entities on the planet have absolutely "no doubt" when it turns out they never had any clear hard empirical evidence of WMDs in the first place?

:doh: ... :bang:

[Skeptic]

"Some have argued we should wait (for a threat to materialize) -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein." -- President Bush, October 7, 2002

So, Bush would rather stake the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as those of our brave soldiers, on trusting in intelligence that is based not on clear hard evidence of any current threat, but on the hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations of defectors?

"Riskiest of all options"? Trusting the hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations of defectors (than on clear hard verifiable evidence), thereby risking lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as those of our brave troops, is less risky?

Bush's risky invasion has unnecessarily cost the lives of many thousands (including our brave troops), dramatically increased anti-American hatred world wide, increased terrorist recruitment, increased the risk of future terrorist attacks on America, and created an ongoing bloody chaotic nightmare for many thousands of Iraqi people. All because we needed to remove Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat? All because he had "no doubt" that Iraq possessed WMD? (How can Bush say we need to remove Saddam BEFORE he becomes a threat, while at the same time have "no doubt" that Saddam is a threat? What a contradiction!!) All because Bush was "not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein"?
:doh:

And just look at how many Americans have bought into this stupid massive right-wing propaganda experiment! If more people had simply THOUGHT, before blindly believing everything that emanated from the lips of George W. Bush, we would not be in this mess, and thousands of innocent people, including our brave troops, would not be dead.

[Frank Ernest]

When you undertake a major land and air war against a sovereign nation, when there is no evidence that nation was or is an immanent threat (mushroom cloud, no mobile weapons labs, no partnership with terrorists who attacked America, etc.) you need more justification.

Bush stands naked.
:darwinsm:

Hey, dissenters: I think it's time to trot our all the evidence that REFUTES the Downing Street memo--don't you think? After all, dissent is what makes America unique, noble and free....
Don't have to. As it relates to any impeachment effort, it's meaningless.

[Frank Ernest]

Hard to finish a sentence when it is based on lies...

"Unless we ferret out the defects and errors which have proved fatal to other once vigorous civiliations, we cannot hope to strengthen our own or even to be realistic in our conception of the dangers which confront our own."
--Historian Philip Lee Ralph
We are doing that by removing liberalism.

http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/

"Though the mills of the gods grind slowly, Yet they grind exceeding small..."
--unknown
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle_new.asp?ArticleID=13
:yawn:

[Frank Ernest]

And just look at how many Americans have bought into this stupid massive right-wing propaganda experiment!
I guess this means the stupid massive left-wing propaganda experiment failed. :up:

If more people had simply THOUGHT, before blindly believing everything that emanated from the lips of George W. Bush, we would not be in this mess, and thousands of innocent people, including our brave troops, would not be dead.
They did think and reelected George W. Bush overwhelmingly. :up:

[BillyBob]

So, you agreed with Bush that we needed to invade BEFORE a threat became imminent.

Yep!!!!



Bush and company spoke in general terms, so let me do so as well. Let me ask again:
Forgetting about Iraq for a moment, is it ever morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that it will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future threat, in the absence of clear hard evidence of an existing significant imminent threat?

That's not what happened.

[BillyBob]

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and
facts were being fixed around the policy."

-- Downing Street memo (July 23, 2002) source (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html)


If Bush fixed all this intel, tell me why Clinton lobbed a few missles at Saddam???????

[aikido7]

Don't have to. As it relates to any impeachment effort, it's meaningless.

This administrations impeachable crimes already documented are a classic "slam dunk."

If a special prosecuter is appointed, that will get all these lies. evasions and cover-ups out in the open. And if not, any opportunity they might otherwise have to rehabilitate their credibility is even further undermined.

[Frank Ernest]

This administrations impeachable crimes already documented are a classic "slam dunk."
:darwinsm: :aikido:7 is an America-hating :Commie: :loser:.

If a special prosecuter is appointed, that will get all these lies. evasions and cover-ups out in the open. And if not, any opportunity they might otherwise have to rehabilitate their credibility is even further undermined.
I will watch you and yours fade into historical and hysterical obilvion.

Con much gusto! :thumb:

[simply one]

The essence of being American is to always question. And to adjust the government to fit the people, not vice-versa. That is why the FIRST AMENDMENT is freedom of speech, press, religion, etc... And that is why the FoundingFathers allowed the Constitution to be amended. To adjust for the changing needs of the people. But now, the gov't is builfing itself into a propaganda machine that wants power for the sake of power, and not for the sake of the people. The populace is being so twisted that anyone who questions the established way of thinking is immediately discounted and shunned. The people who question are the true patriots. Please feel free to refute me. It is your right as an American to question. In fact, please question what I say, but also actually consider it with an open mind.

The Invasion of Iraq
The deliberate and proven misleading of the US government, the twist of the intelligence to fit the administration's purposes, and the blind acceptance of this by most Americans is a prime example of how Americans are losing their ability to question. Now, even in this forum, people are being insulted simply for questioning.

kudos to aikido and skeptic for being Patriotic.

To flag-waving, arrogant, neo-con "Christians": please actually THINK what this country stands for before opening your mouths (or moving your fingers across the keyboard).

I'd hate to think that this country stands for the killing of tens of thousands to remove someone, somewhere, who MAY become a threat in the future. Applying that logic, if thats what it means to be American, then why haven't we attempted to conquer the world? Because any country could theoretically become a future threat.

------

peace.

[Skeptic]

I guess this means the stupid massive left-wing propaganda experiment failed. The experiment is not over yet. Time will tell as to whether it becomes a success.

They did think and reelected George W. Bush overwhelmingly. Wrong. They elected George W. Bush because they DID NOT think!

[On Fire]

Septic, did you get your Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie yet?

[Skeptic]

Yep!!!! Then you agree that there are times when we must kill thousands of innocent people BEFORE an imminent threat actually exists. Correct?

That's not what happened. Let me ask yet again:
Forgetting about Iraq for a moment, in general, is it ever morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that it will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future threat, in the absence of clear hard evidence of an existing significant imminent threat?

You just said that you agreed with Bush that we needed to invade Iraq BEFORE a threat became imminent. If this is your position, then you believe that it IS morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that doing so will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future threat. Correct?

[Skeptic]

If Bush fixed all this intel, tell me why Clinton lobbed a few missles at Saddam??????? The following are excerpts of a 1996 article.

My emphasis:
===================================
Clinton: Strike sends message to Saddam
Iraq says 5 Iraqis killed, 19 wounded

September 3, 1996
Web posted at: 12:20 p.m. EDT (1620 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton said Tuesday that the U.S. missile attack against Iraqi targets was in retaliation for Iraq's assault on a Kurdish-controlled city in northern Iraq.

Navy ships and Air Force B-52 bombers fired a total of 27 cruise missiles at "selected air defense targets" in southern Iraq for about a 45-minute period beginning midmorning, the Pentagon told CNN.

"Our objectives are limited, but clear," the president said. "To make Saddam pay a price for the latest act of brutality, and to reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors and America's interests."

"Our missiles sent the following message to Saddam Hussein: When you abuse your own people or threaten your neighbors, you must pay a price," Clinton said.

...

Clinton ordered the air strike against southern targets after Iraqi forces overran the Kurdish city of Irbil, in the "safe haven" in northern Iraq. The purpose of the Iraqi assault was apparently to put a Kurdish faction loyal to Saddam in charge of the city.

Irbil was to be a key distribution center for humanitarian supplies purchased by Iraq under a U.N. resolution allowing a limited easing of the sanctions placed against the country after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.

"Until we are sure these humanitarian supplies can actually get to those who need them, the plan cannot go forward," Clinton said.

The U.S., Britain, and France announced that Wednesday the southern no-fly zone -- north from the Kuwaiti border -- would be expanded from the 32nd parallel to the 33rd, allowing allied planes to fly within 30 miles of Baghdad. The expanded no-fly zone is intended to serve as a warning to Saddam that his aggression would not be tolerated, Clinton said.

...

Clinton did not rule out further military action against Iraq.

"It depends on what (Saddam) does -- not what he says -- what he does," said the president.

source (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/03/iraq.clinton/)
===================================

Clinton did NOT order an all-out massive invasion of Iraq, which he knew would have unnecessarily killed many thousands of innocent men, women and children! Clinton did NOT claim to have sufficient evidence that Iraq was such a WMD threat that an all-out invasion was necessary.

Clinton was wrong to give any support to Bush's invasion of March 2003.

[Skeptic]

I'd hate to think that this country stands for the killing of tens of thousands to remove someone, somewhere, who MAY become a threat in the future. Applying that logic, if thats what it means to be American, then why haven't we attempted to conquer the world? Because any country could theoretically become a future threat.
Don't worry, Bush and company have plans on the table for more than just Iraq. As we speak, they are coming up with new ways to dupe the American public and Congress into fearing alleged future threats by other nations. They are willing to unnecessarily risk the lives of thousands of innocent people in "enemy" nations, in order to protect just "one American life."

If they can conquer the world in the name of "freedom and democracy," they will. They're working on it.

[simply one]

Don't worry, Bush and company have plans on the table for more than just Iraq. As we speak, they are coming up with new ways to dupe the American public and Congress into fearing alleged future threats by other nations. They are willing to unnecessarily risk the lives of thousands of innocent people in "enemy" nations, in order to protect just "one American life."

If they can conquer the world in the name of "freedom and democracy," they will. They're working on it.


I pity the poor, brave US solidiers who will have to fight and die for Bush's crusade.

----

peace.

[BillyBob]

I hope Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are on the list. We need to kill a lot more Muslims.

[BillyBob]

kudos to aikido and skeptic for being Patriotic.




:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

The experiment is not over yet. Time will tell as to whether it becomes a success.
:darwinsm: Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Wrong. They elected George W. Bush because they DID NOT think!
:darwinsm:

[aikido7]

And Watergate was just a "third-rate burglary." Nothing to get excited about.

[Frank Ernest]

And Watergate was just a "third-rate burglary." Nothing to get excited about.
Not really. I believe the standard lie-beral rebuttal for this one is, "That was 30 years ago. Time to move on."

:darwinsm:

[Delmar]

And Watergate was just a "third-rate burglary." Nothing to get excited about.
No, it was the worst crime that ever happened and I;m sure if you dig deep enough you'll find that President Bush was involved!

[Frank Ernest]

No, it was the worst crime that ever happened and I;m sure if you dig deep enough you'll find that President Bush was involved!
:darwinsm: I think I'll need an aluminum-foil deflector beanie to figure this one out.

[aikido7]

"We have reached a point where all but the most delusional enthusiasts of the Iraq war have now acknowledged that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion and likely for over a decade preceding the war. Fox News and the President were slow to acknowledge this fact, but now have.

"Unfortunately, it seems this rare consensus has lulled many into failing to ask the follow-up question: why were the President and other high-ranking administration officials so definitive in their statements that Iraq possessed WMD? This question is not of a merely historical significance: we deserve to know whether these statements were the result of a 'massive intelligence failure' as some have contended or a deliberate deception of the Congress and the American people."

www.wonkette.com

He has also destroyed the English language, which--to many children who look to the president as a role model--has left them behind.

[Frank Ernest]

"We have reached a point where all but the most delusional enthusiasts of the Iraq war have now acknowledged that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion and likely for over a decade preceding the war. Fox News and the President were slow to acknowledge this fact, but now have.

"Unfortunately, it seems this rare consensus has lulled many into failing to ask the follow-up question: why were the President and other high-ranking administration officials so definitive in their statements that Iraq possessed WMD? This question is not of a merely historical significance: we deserve to know whether these statements were the result of a 'massive intelligence failure' as some have contended or a deliberate deception of the Congress and the American people."

www.wonkette.com

He has also destroyed the English language, which--to many children who look to the president as a role model--has left them behind.
WMD were never the point, but you :Commie:s are delusional enough to think you can sell it as if it were. :darwinsm:

:mrt: Foo'.

[simply one]

WMD were never the point,


so, if WMDs weren't the reason for the war, why did the President tell the American people that is was? And his administration even went the length to manufacture their own 'intelligence'? I am not saying that WMDs wouldn't be a good reason for a war, but Bush misled America and tens of thousands of Iraqis and almost 1700 US troops have lost their lives. So, Frank, what is the moral justification for the killings of tens of thousands of men, women, and children?

------

peace

[Skeptic]

so, if WMDs weren't the reason for the war, why did the President tell the American people that is was? And his administration even went the length to manufacture their own 'intelligence'? I am not saying that WMDs wouldn't be a good reason for a war, but Bush misled America and tens of thousands of Iraqis and almost 1700 US troops have lost their lives. So, Frank, what is the moral justification for the killings of tens of thousands of men, women, and children? Good questions!

If "WMD were never the point," then what WAS the point in killing many thousands of innocent Iraqi people?

[Skeptic]

Posted by BillyBob in June 2003:What are you going to say when the WMD is proven beyond even your ability to pretend it isn't there?

...

What are you silly neo-coms going to say when the WMD are found? It's now June 2005 and Bush's own best experts say Iraq's WMDs were most likely destroyed many years ago.

What do YOU have to say, BillyBob?

"Oh, they're still there. They just haven't looked hard enough."

or

"They were all secretly shipped out of Iraq to Syria or someplace."

:darwinsm:

[simply one]

:darwinism:

nice one!

[simply one]

:darwinsm:

nice one!

[Skeptic]

WMD were never the point, ... Are you calling Bush and company liars?

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


============================
Other lies by Bush and company:


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"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 is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

What? :confused:
"...the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now"???
I thought they were supposed to have had the evidence of WMDs before they invaded Iraq!!!

========================
Rumsfeld later backtracking:

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

:darwinsm:

It's quite sad, really. Tens of thousands of innocent people died and they never really had any clear hard evidence of WMDs in the first place!

[aikido7]

Taking responsiblity for one's reasoning and confronting one's shortcomings is difficult, because it involves a large measure of personal integrity. For those who cannot summon up sufficient honesty for such a task, I suppose that posting "smilies" will do in the short term. But sooner or later, the piper must be paid. --Sigmund Freud, Psychobabble for the Rest of Us, 1900

[Frank Ernest]

so, if WMDs weren't the reason for the war, why did the President tell the American people that is was?
He didn't.

And his administration even went the length to manufacture their own 'intelligence'?
No evidence to support your "contention." It is a lie.

I am not saying that WMDs wouldn't be a good reason for a war, but Bush misled America and tens of thousands of Iraqis and almost 1700 US troops have lost their lives.
No, he didn't.

So, Frank, what is the moral justification for the killings of tens of thousands of men, women, and children?
What is the moral justification for making wild accusations which are untrue?

[Skeptic]

"The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction. It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
CBS News
November 14, 2002

"So this isn't about oil, it is about weapons of mass destruction ..."
Prime Minister Tony Blair
November 14, 2002

"It is about weapons of mass destruction. It is unquestionably about that."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
(source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26/173608.shtml))

"It is about weapons of mass destruction."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
(source (http://belgrade.usembassy.gov/iraq/030227c.html))
February 26, 2003

"Yes -- the question is about weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush
(source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030503-1.html))
May 3, 2003

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."
Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels
Nazi Minister of Propaganda

[Frank Ernest]

Taking responsiblity for one's reasoning and confronting one's shortcomings is difficult, because it involves a large measure of personal integrity. For those who cannot summon up sufficient honesty for such a task, I suppose that posting "smilies" will do in the short term. But sooner or later, the piper must be paid. --Sigmund Freud, Psychobabble for the Rest of Us, 1900
What would either you or Freud know about personal integrity? :darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."
Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels
Nazi Minister of Propaganda
Then your failure is that you have no ability to repress dissent.

[Skeptic]

Then your failure is that you have no ability to repress dissent. No, Bush and company thought they could get away with repressing dissent and the truth. They succeeded long enough to convince Congress and the American people that we needed to invade Iraq. But, they were mistaken in thinking that they could keep the truth secret indefinitely. The truth is out. Now, the task is to undo the harm done by the Bush propaganda machine by helping more people see the truth.

[Skeptic]

"The Secretary of State is going to go listen to our allies as to how best to effect a policy, the primary goal of which will be to say to Saddam Hussein: we won't tolerate you developing weapons of mass destruction, and we expect you to leave your neighbors alone."
President Bush
Feb 22, 2001

Two days later, Powell declares:
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Feb 24, 2001

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
President Bush
Address to the nation
March 19, 2003

"The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world."
President Bush
April 10, 2003


Tell me again it was not about WMDs.

[simply one]

I am still dumbfounded at how Frank can blatantly ignore facts, even when tare forcefully presented to him. Frankly, the truth hurts, but its still the truth. So, Frank, either accept it and stop deluding yourself, or at least stop ranting to us that know the truth.

The truth is, Bush said his motivation for invading Iraq was that it had WMDs. Which it so far (so far equaling over two years) has proven to have ZERO of. And tens of thousands of innocents have died during this 'crusade'. :doh:

want to know my sources? I believe skeptic has generously provided them in the last SEVERAL posts.
:duh: :loser:
-----

peace

[aikido7]

jeremy scahill:

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

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.

Visualize a special prosecutor....

[Skeptic]

Let's post the entire article!

=====================
The Other Bomb Drops
by JEREMY SCAHILL

June 1, 2005

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

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.

The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full combat mode--not just building the dossier of manipulated intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration was struggling to sell.

On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." Bush said this after nearly a year of systematic, aggressive bombings of Iraq, during which Iraq was already being disarmed by force, in preparation for the invasion to come. By the Pentagon's own admission, it carried out seventy-eight individual, offensive airstrikes against Iraq in 2002 alone.

"It reminded me of a boxing match in which one of the boxers is told not to move while the other is allowed to punch and only stop when he is convinced that he has weakened his opponent to the point where he is defeated before the fight begins," says former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck, a thirty-year career diplomat who was the top UN official in Iraq from 1998 to 2000. During both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Washington has consistently and falsely claimed these attacks were mandated by UN Resolution 688, passed after the Gulf War, which called for an end to the Iraqi government's repression in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. Von Sponeck dismissed this justification as a "total misnomer." In an interview with The Nation, Von Sponeck said that the new information "belatedly confirms" what he has long argued: "The no-fly zones had little to do with protecting ethnic and religious groups from Saddam Hussein's brutality" but were in fact an "illegal establishment...for bilateral interests of the US and the UK."

These attacks were barely covered in the press and Von Sponeck says that as far back as 1999, the United States and Britain pressured the UN not to call attention to them. During his time in Iraq, Von Sponeck began documenting each of the airstrikes, showing "regular attacks on civilian installations including food warehouses, residences, mosques, roads and people." These reports, he said, were "welcomed" by Secretary General Kofi Annan, but "the US and UK governments strongly objected to this reporting." Von Sponeck says that he was pressured to end the practice, with a senior British diplomat telling him, "All you are doing is putting a UN stamp of approval on Iraqi propaganda." But Von Sponeck continued documenting the damage and visited many attack sites. In 1999 alone, he confirmed the death of 144 civilians and more than 400 wounded by the US/UK bombings.

After September 11, there was a major change in attitude within the Bush Administration toward the attacks. Gone was any pretext that they were about protecting Shiites and Kurds--this was a plan to systematically degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself from a foreign attack: bombing Iraq's air defenses, striking command facilities, destroying communication and radar infrastructure. As an Associated Press report noted in November 2002, "Those costly, hard-to-repair facilities are essential to Iraq's air defense."

Rear Admiral David Gove, former deputy director of global operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on November 20, 2002, that US and British pilots were "essentially flying combat missions." On October 3, 2002, the New York Times reported that US pilots were using southern Iraq for "practice runs, mock strikes and real attacks" against a variety of targets. But the full significance of this dramatic change in policy toward Iraq only became clear last month, with the release of the Downing Street memo. In it, British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is reported to have said in 2002, after meeting with US officials, that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," a reference to the stepped-up airstrikes. Now the Sunday Times of London has revealed that these spikes "had become a full air offensive"--in other words, a war.

Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers has called the latest revelations about these attacks "the smoking bullet in the smoking gun," irrefutable proof that President Bush misled Congress before the vote on Iraq. When Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, he also said he would use it only as a last resort, after all other avenues had been exhausted. But the Downing Street memo reveals that the Administration had already decided to topple Saddam by force and was manipulating intelligence to justify the decision. That information puts the increase in unprovoked air attacks in the year prior to the war in an entirely new light: The Bush Administration was not only determined to wage war on Iraq, regardless of the evidence; it had already started that war months before it was put to a vote in Congress.

It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment.

But another question looms, particularly for Democrats who voted for the war and now say they were misled: Why weren't these unprovoked and unauthorized attacks investigated when they were happening, when it might have had a real impact on the Administration's drive to war? Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill. A real probing of this "smoking gun" would not be uncomfortable only for Republicans. The truth is that Bush, like President Bill Clinton before him, oversaw the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam against a sovereign country with no international or US mandate. That gun is probably too hot for either party to touch.

Source (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill )
=======================

:madmad:
What's wrong with America if our government can get away with this crap!!!

[Skeptic]

BTW, thanks for bringing it to our attention, aikido7! :thumb:

[Frank Ernest]

I am still dumbfounded at how Frank can blatantly ignore facts, even when tare forcefully presented to him. Frankly, the truth hurts, but its still the truth. So, Frank, either accept it and stop deluding yourself, or at least stop ranting to us that know the truth.
:yawn: " ... us that know the truth." :darwinsm:

The truth is, Bush said his motivation for invading Iraq was that it had WMDs. Which it so far (so far equaling over two years) has proven to have ZERO of. And tens of thousands of innocents have died during this 'crusade'. :doh:
:yawn: You need to get out more.

want to know my sources? I believe skeptic has generously provided them in the last SEVERAL posts.
:darwinsm:

:duh: :loser:
-----

peace
:Commie: :zakath:

[Skeptic]

Hey, Frankie:

Don't you think you ought to respond to the statements made by your fellow Righties?

WMD were never the point, ... Are you calling Bush and company liars?

"The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction. It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
CBS News
November 14, 2002

"So this isn't about oil, it is about weapons of mass destruction ..."
Prime Minister Tony Blair
November 14, 2002

"It is about weapons of mass destruction. It is unquestionably about that."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
(source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26/173608.shtml))
February 26, 2003

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
President Bush
Address to the nation
March 19, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

"The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world."
President Bush
April 10, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003


============================
Other lies by Bush and company:


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"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 is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

What? :confused:
"...the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now"???
I thought they were supposed to have had the evidence of WMDs before they invaded Iraq!!!

========================
Rumsfeld later backtracking:

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

:darwinsm:

It's quite sad, really. Tens of thousands of innocent people died and they never really had any clear hard evidence of WMDs in the first place!

[Frank Ernest]

Hey, Frankie:

Don't you think you ought to respond to the statements made by your fellow Righties?

Are you calling Bush and company liars?

"The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction. It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
CBS News
November 14, 2002

"So this isn't about oil, it is about weapons of mass destruction ..."
Prime Minister Tony Blair
November 14, 2002

"It is about weapons of mass destruction. It is unquestionably about that."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
(source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26/173608.shtml))
February 26, 2003

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
President Bush
Address to the nation
March 19, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

"The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world."
President Bush
April 10, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003


============================
Other lies by Bush and company:


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"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 is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

What? :confused:
"...the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now"???
I thought they were supposed to have had the evidence of WMDs before they invaded Iraq!!!

========================
Rumsfeld later backtracking:

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

:darwinsm:

It's quite sad, really. Tens of thousands of innocent people died and they never really had any clear hard evidence of WMDs in the first place!
:sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[BillyBob]

jeremy scahill:

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

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.

Visualize a special prosecutor....



:yawn:

One minute you guys [lefties/anti-americans/commies] complain that Bush didn't have a plan, now you are complaining that he was too prepared. Make up your friggin' minds! :doh:

'Minds'? What was I thinking.......... :dunce:

[Frank Ernest]

Here's the latest I can find on the "slam dunk" impeachment.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/3/00901.shtml

[aikido7]

:yawn:

One minute you guys [lefties/anti-americans/commies] complain that Bush didn't have a plan, now you are complaining that he was too prepared. Make up your friggin' minds! :doh:

'Minds'? What was I thinking.......... :dunce:I always sensed Bush was a lying hypocrite. There have been plenty of posted, verifyable sources testifying to the craven mendacities of his personal life, his social agenda and his foreign policy.

Most Americans would rather consume and sleep ("zzzzzzzz") and give all their democratic ideals and power to an idolized daddy-bully figure who must know better than they do simply because he is "president" and they were brought up to genuflect to authority. The words "patriotic" and "patriarch" spring from a common root.

He obviously does not have the slightest idea of what to do with Iraq. No plan. Ill-prepared. At a clear disadvantage with reality. Misinformed in an age of information. Asleep at the wheel ("zzzzzzzzz") and bull-headed.

Bush is a liar and took us to war under tragically false pretenses.

[aikido7]

Here's the latest I can find on the "slam dunk" impeachment.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/3/00901.shtmlKeep trusting your trusty sources and catch some "z's" Frank....

[Frank Ernest]

I always sensed Bush was a lying hypocrite. There have been plenty of posted, verifyable sources testifying to the craven mendacities of his personal life, his social agenda and his foreign policy.
You do share a common delusion with your "sources."

Most Americans would rather consume and sleep ("zzzzzzzz") and give all their democratic ideals and power to an idolized daddy-bully figure who must know better than they do simply because he is "president" and they were brought up to genuflect to authority. The words "patriotic" and "patriarch" spring from a common root.
:yawn: I hope this isn't an expose of your "physic" abilities.

He obviously does not have the slightest idea of what to do with Iraq. No plan. Ill-prepared. At a clear disadvantage with reality. Misinformed in an age of information. Asleep at the wheel ("zzzzzzzzz") and bull-headed.
:drum::drum::drum: Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Bush is a liar and took us to war under tragically false pretenses.
:sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Frank Ernest]

Keep trusting your trusty sources and catch some "z's" Frank....
:darwinsm:'K. :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[On Fire]

"I'm not going to say anything bad about anybody," he said. "Our democracy is diminished by those who believe we have to dislike those with whom we disagree. If you are mad, you cannot hear."

[Skeptic]

:sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz That's right, folks! Frankie would rather sleep than acknowledge he is wrong.

Still think Bush & Company's stated goal was not about WMDs?

Do I need to keep posting quotes from your fellow right-wingers in power?

Of course, you righties want to shift the goal away from WMDs, if you think it will help your justification for war.

Well, I got news for ya. Americans are slowly waking up from Bush's propaganda fog machine.

Most in U.S. say Iraq war not worthwhile (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/iraq.poll/index.html)

Low Ratings For Congress (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/24/opinion/polls/main697548.shtml)

Bush approval mark nears low (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/23/bush.poll/index.html)

Army misses recruiting goal again (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/army.recruiting.ap/index.html)

ABC News/Washington Post Poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

[Skeptic]

Should I keep posting this until BillyBob acknowledges it?

Posted by BillyBob in June 2003:What are you going to say when the WMD is proven beyond even your ability to pretend it isn't there?
...
What are you silly neo-coms going to say when the WMD are found? It's now June 2005 and Bush's own best experts say Iraq's WMDs were most likely destroyed many years ago.

What do YOU have to say, BillyBob?

"Oh, they're still there. They just haven't looked hard enough."

or

"They were all secretly shipped out of Iraq to Syria or someplace."

:darwinsm:

[Holly]

:darwinsm:'K. :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

While you are busy laughing and copping z's, nearly 1700 U.S. service men and women have been needlessly killed over this, and thousands more have had life-altering injuries. Each one of them was somebody's son or daughter, friend, sweetheart, sister, brother, or parent. All while you are laughing and sitting behind your computer typing your stupid little z's. I'm sure that is much more comfortable for you than imagining the very real pain and suffering that this has caused. I have worked in a veterans hospital, and I can assure you it is no laughing matter.

[Jukia]

You do share a common delusion with your "sources."




Weren't most, if not all, of the quotes he posted from administration sources? Rummy and the boys? Oh, wait, maybe the liberal mass media made up all the quotes, yeah, thats gotta be it.

[Skeptic]

Also not laughing are the families and friends of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children who have died unnecessarily, and many more who have suffered tragic injuries, as a result of Bush's immoral invasion and occupation.

[taoist]

Well, just three more years, and this thread can finally die. Bush will not be impeached, as everyone, including the OPer knows. Should he be? Heck, I thought Reagan should have been after the Iran-Contra scandal broke. Of course, impeaching Reagan by then was something like taking down a riderless horse, but still ...

Nope, Bush started this war, and it's so much "all his" that no one, and I mean no one, has enough interest in digging down into the manure to take over until they absolutely have to. The money, the lives, the religious fervor, the money ... yikes. Nope, it's all his and welcome to it. We'll slay him in the history books after the dust settles.

[Skeptic]

Nope, it's all his and welcome to it. We'll slay him in the history books after the dust settles. I will not sit idly and wait for history to condemn what should be publicly condemned now. Every day, more Americans are turning away from Bush's right-wing propaganda. Bush must pay for his crimes sooner, not later. The sooner he pays, the sooner Bush's misguided and immoral preemptive-war policies will be abandoned for the good of America and the world. The sooner he pays for his crimes against humanity, the sooner America can start healing the divisions and animosity against us. The sooner he pays, the less likely Bush will pull some other immoral murderous crap during the next three years.

Now that Bush's approval ratings are once again at record lows, this is the time to be extra concerned about the possibility of another reckless poll-boosting campaign in the name of "patriotism" and "protecting national security."

[Jukia]

I will not sit idly and wait for history to condemn what should be publicly condemned now. Every day, more Americans are turning away from Bush's right-wing propaganda. Bush must pay for his crimes sooner, not later. The sooner he pays, the sooner Bush's misguided and immoral preemptive-war policies will be abandoned for the good of America and the world. The sooner he pays for his crimes against humanity, the sooner America can start healing the divisions and animosity against us. The sooner he pays, the less likely Bush will pull some other immoral murderous crap during the next three years.

Now that Bush's approval ratings are once again at record lows, this is the time to be extra concerned about the possibility of another reckless poll-boosting campaign in the name of "patriotism" and "protecting national security."

Skeptic, give it a rest. Bush II is more stupid than criminal. Nixon was, despite his claims, a crook but not stupid. Ronny, the golden boy, on the other hand, was suffering from dementia and astrological overload. Clinton was the smartest of the bunch but suffered from perpetual adolescent sexual drives. Bush the elder was neither stupid nor criminal, more like bumbling.

Bush's crimes agains humanity are certainly no worse than Husseins, than North Koreas, than Chinas, than what is happening in Africa. He is not going to be impeached. And if he is do you want Cheney as President? Now that is a truly frightening thought.

We can't just leave Iraq now, although simply putting Hussein back in power might be worth the giggles. We stuck our noses in and we have a responsibility to at least try to leave it in a better position because of that.

[aikido7]

Skeptic, give it a rest. Bush II is more stupid than criminal. Nixon was, despite his claims, a crook but not stupid. Ronny, the golden boy, on the other hand, was suffering from dementia and astrological overload. Clinton was the smartest of the bunch but suffered from perpetual adolescent sexual drives. Bush the elder was neither stupid nor criminal, more like bumbling.

Bush's crimes agains humanity are certainly no worse than Husseins, than North Koreas, than Chinas, than what is happening in Africa. He is not going to be impeached. And if he is do you want Cheney as President? Now that is a truly frightening thought.

We can't just leave Iraq now, although simply putting Hussein back in power might be worth the giggles. We stuck our noses in and we have a responsibility to at least try to leave it in a better position because of that.Bush lied to his country and manipulated intelligence to get us into two wars, killing over 1700 American men and women and wounding thousands more--all under false "reasons." And thousands and thousands of Iraqi citizens left dead, maimed and homeless.

Both of the elections that put Bush into power were rife with unlawful actions and mysterious irregularities.

America was brazenly attacked during his presidency; he opposed an impartial accounting of the tragedy and stalled for months at the prospect of testifying before the committee--finally relenting to do so behind closed doors.

His administration has approved torture techniques, ignoring the reports of a "gulag-style" system by Amnesty International and rebuffing an inquiry by the World Court.

He has deliberately approved falsifying scientific evidence on global warming, rebuffed the Kyoto Protocals and approved more oil drilling in Alaska's Anwar Province.

He has advocated dismantling Social Security, allowed military recruiters in our high schools, left millions of children behind because he favors testing over teaching.

He has paid reporters to report admininstration propaganda as if it were real news. He has backed zealots and dictators in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. while claming to be a champion of freedom and democracy.

He has sold armnaments to dictators and terrorists.

He is standing in the way of scientific progress in curing a plethora of diseases and ailments by opposing stem-cell research.

He has increased the burden on the middle class of America, further squeezing it to the margins of the economy.

His vice-presidential pick is an immoral businessman who is making money for corporate interests in a time of war.

...and a couple more other things which puts those with a short attention span and an incurious mind fast asleep....

[Frank Ernest]

That's right, folks! Frankie would rather sleep than acknowledge he is wrong.
:darwinsm: :drum::drum::drum::

[Frank Ernest]

While you are busy laughing and copping z's, nearly 1700 U.S. service men and women have been needlessly killed over this, and thousands more have had life-altering injuries. Each one of them was somebody's son or daughter, friend, sweetheart, sister, brother, or parent. All while you are laughing and sitting behind your computer typing your stupid little z's. I'm sure that is much more comfortable for you than imagining the very real pain and suffering that this has caused. I have worked in a veterans hospital, and I can assure you it is no laughing matter.
Spare me the phony sentimental slop. You lie-berals mouth platitudes while the real people are doing the work.

[Frank Ernest]

Bush lied to his country and manipulated intelligence to get us into two wars, killing over 1700 American men and women and wounding thousands more--all under false "reasons." And thousands and thousands of Iraqi citizens left dead, maimed and homeless.

Both of the elections that put Bush into power were rife with unlawful actions and mysterious irregularities.

America was brazenly attacked during his presidency; he opposed an impartial accounting of the tragedy and stalled for months at the prospect of testifying before the committee--finally relenting to do so behind closed doors.

His administration has approved torture techniques, ignoring the reports of a "gulag-style" system by Amnesty International and rebuffing an inquiry by the World Court.

He has deliberately approved falsifying scientific evidence on global warming, rebuffed the Kyoto Protocals and approved more oil drilling in Alaska's Anwar Province.

He has advocated dismantling Social Security, allowed military recruiters in our high schools, left millions of children behind because he favors testing over teaching.

He has paid reporters to report admininstration propaganda as if it were real news. He has backed zealots and dictators in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. while claming to be a champion of freedom and democracy.

He has sold armnaments to dictators and terrorists.

He is standing in the way of scientific progress in curing a plethora of diseases and ailments by opposing stem-cell research.

He has increased the burden on the middle class of America, further squeezing it to the margins of the economy.

His vice-presidential pick is an immoral businessman who is making money for corporate interests in a time of war.

...and a couple more other things which puts those with a short attention span and an incurious mind fast asleep....

"An infamous, nutty, tree-hugging lib/commie/hippie spouting leftist swill from the Streisand Compund..." -- :aikido:7 sig line

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Delmar]

Well, just three more years, and this thread can finally die.
I gave you :up: rep for this sentence. I will give you :down: rep for the way this post ends when I get a chance.





Bush will not be impeached, as everyone, including the OPer knows. Should he be? Heck, I thought Reagan should have been after the Iran-Contra scandal broke. Of course, impeaching Reagan by then was something like taking down a riderless horse, but still ...

Nope, Bush started this war, and it's so much "all his" that no one, and I mean no one, has enough interest in digging down into the manure to take over until they absolutely have to. The money, the lives, the religious fervor, the money ... yikes. Nope, it's all his and welcome to it. We'll slay him in the history books after the dust settles.

[Skeptic]

He is not going to be impeached. I'm hoping both Bush and Cheney will pressured into resigning!

[Jukia]

I'm hoping both Bush and Cheney will pressured into resigning!

You don't really think that do you? I think they are both bad for the country but that simply ain't gonna happen.

[Skeptic]

Bush's crimes against humanity are certainly no worse than Husseins, than North Koreas, than Chinas, than what is happening in Africa. Does this mean Americans should excuse Bush's crimes?

We can't just leave Iraq now, although simply putting Hussein back in power might be worth the giggles. We stuck our noses in and we have a responsibility to at least try to leave it in a better position because of that. Our continued presence in Iraq is only making matters worse. The notion that the U.S. military and reconstruction efforts will somehow stabilize Iraq enough for democracy to flourish is mere wishful thinking!

Once the U.S. pulls out, a fundamentalist Islamic regime will be established, factions will learn to tolerate each other, and will unite in the fact that the U.S. is no longer able to impose "democracy" on them "for their own good." If the U.S. apologizes (after Bush resigns) for its atrocities, when it pulls out, we might even eventually make a friend out of Iraq and the Arab world.

[Skeptic]

You don't really think that do you? I think they are both bad for the country but that simply ain't gonna happen. I know, I'm a dreamer. But, I'm not the only one! ;)

[Holly]

Spare me the phony sentimental slop. You lie-berals mouth platitudes while the real people are doing the work.
"Spare me..."? Go spare yourself, buddy. Do you claim to be one of the "real people" supposedly "doing the work"? You've certainly got a nerve calling anyone a phony. It's mighty easy for people like you to support a war you aren't over there fighting. Shedding other people's blood apparently is of little or no consequence to armchair patriots like you. As for "the real people doing the work," I have mentioned in this thread that I have worked in a veterans hospital, and my late father, a 20-year U.S. Army veteran, had a 40% service-connected disability, so I am actually rather well acquainted with the sacrifices true patriots make. How dare you try to claim some of their glory?! You can drape yourself in the flag all you want, but it is just a sham. Too bad if it ticks you off that some of us can see right through the pretense. I also noticed that as usual you couldn't rebut anything I said, but had to resort to insults and generalizations.

[Frank Ernest]

"Spare me..."? Go spare yourself, buddy. Do you claim to be one of the "real people" supposedly "doing the work"? You've certainly got a nerve calling anyone a phony. It's mighty easy for people like you to support a war you aren't over there fighting. Shedding other people's blood apparently is of little or no consequence to armchair patriots like you. As for "the real people doing the work," I have mentioned in this thread that I have worked in a veterans hospital, and my late father, a 20-year U.S. Army veteran, had a 40% service-connected disability, so I am actually rather well acquainted with the sacrifices true patriots make. How dare you try to claim some of their glory?! You can drape yourself in the flag all you want, but it is just a sham. Too bad if it ticks you off that some of us can see right through the pretense. I also noticed that as usual you couldn't rebut anything I said, but had to resort to insults and generalizations.
:yawn: (See underlined for your insults and generalizations.) Don't extend your "psychic" abilities too far. You have no knowledge of my background or history. I really don't care about yours, as it is irrelevant to any current argument. The rest of your statement is childish ranting.

[BillyBob]

Still think Bush & Company's stated goal was not about WMDs?

Nobody claims that WMD wasn't one of the primary reasons we went into Iraq. There were over a dozen UN Resolutions based on them which Saddam ignored.


Do I need to keep posting quotes from your fellow right-wingers in power?

While you're at it, how about being fair and balanced and post all the quotes from your fellow left wingers who also touted that Saddam had WMD. You can start with Bill Clinton and John Kerry. Go ahead, Skeppie, show us what kind of man you are. Are you fair and unbiased or are you a Bush hating partisan hack?



Of course, you righties want to shift the goal away from WMDs, if you think it will help your justification for war.

Not so. The war was never exclusively about WMD. Of course, you lefties want to shift the goal and pretend it was because you think it will help with your 'impeachment' plans. :darwinsm:



Well, I got news for ya. Americans are slowly waking up from Bush's propaganda fog machine.


They are also waking up to the realization that you lefties are more interested in political games than you are the security and safety of Americans.

[Jukia]

Not so. The war was never exclusively about WMD. Of course, you lefties want to shift the goal and pretend it was because you think it will help with your 'impeachment' plans.

What, pray tell, is the war about? It is not about WMD's, not about oil (per the administration), not about terrorism (cause that connection has not been made), could not be just about freeing the Iraqi people (if so, then why did we choose them rather than the North Koreans?). What exactly is this war about?

And I may be a partisan hack but I do not hate W. I just wish there was someone with a little more between the ears in the White House.

[BillyBob]

I will not sit idly and wait for history to condemn what should be publicly condemned now. Every day, more Americans are turning away from Bush's right-wing propaganda. Bush must pay for his crimes sooner, not later.

What crimes????

The sooner he pays, the sooner Bush's misguided and immoral preemptive-war policies will be abandoned for the good of America and the world.

You mean, 'For the good of terrorist all over the world'.

The sooner he pays for his crimes against humanity,

Oh, it's crimes against humanity which fuel your rhetoric? If that's the case, you should be exceedingly happy with Bush for removing some of the worlds worst perpetrators against humanity. Saddam and his sons brutally tortured, raped and murdered millions of people, Bush stopped him.

the sooner America can start healing the divisions and animosity against us.

The world has had animosity towards us for decades. [But I'm sure you'll figure some way to blame Bush for that, too.]


The sooner he pays, the less likely Bush will pull some other immoral murderous crap during the next three years.

You guys aren't gonna impeach anybody! You can't even stop Bush from appointing his judges! :darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

What, pray tell, is the war about?

It's about terrorism, ultimately, and changing the Middle East as a way to combat terrorism. By installing democracies in the Middle East, it is less likely that the enouirmous wealth will fall into the handfs of terrorists. By installing freedom, people will take charge of their countries instead of being helpless victims of despotic governments. Of course, while most middle easterners would love the opportunity to live in freedom, there are a few people who would rather rule them with brutality and fear. [And reap the vast profits from the region]



And I may be a partisan hack but I do not hate W. I just wish there was someone with a little more between the ears in the White House.

Like.....Kerry......?

[On Fire]

The people mandate a 3rd term for Bush!

[Jukia]

[QUOTE=BillyBob]It's about terrorism, ultimately, and changing the Middle East as a way to combat terrorism. By installing democracies in the Middle East, it is less likely that the enouirmous wealth will fall into the handfs of terrorists. By installing freedom, people will take charge of their countries instead of being helpless victims of despotic governments. Of course, while most middle easterners would love the opportunity to live in freedom, there are a few people who would rather rule them with brutality and fear. [And reap the vast profits from the region]




QUOTE]

Well, time will tell if our efforts are successful. I certainly hope they will be but suspect we may be in for a rude surprise.
And it is our job to "install democracies in the Middle East'? Is North Korea next? What about all the crazies in central & south America? Is it our job to install democracies there too?
Maybe we should have just nuked the entire Middle East, might have been cheaper.

[BillyBob]

Is it our 'job' to install democracies?

Not specifically, but it is our job to protect our interests. If installing democracies is in OUR best interest, why not? Besides, 50 million people have benifited from it...so far....

[simply one]

Besides, 50 million people have benifited from it...so far....

You completely overlook the fact the tens of thousands of Iraqis have died in America's crusade, and many thousands more have been wounded.

Plus, as I keep saying, 1700 American troops have been killed and tens of thousands more have been wounded, and have had their lives completely screwed up.

Now, by "benefited" you of course mean a country that is less secure than when Saddam was in power? A country where terrorists can now easily pass through the sieve-like borders? Granted, there is some progress towards imposing our Americano-style democracy, but the government still cannot take care of its own people!!!! :bang:

A country in shambles, while flag-waving, chest pounding, armchair patriots still say that the Iraqi people are living in happy, flowery, fields of bliss. And that America's crusade is good for the world. And that Bush is NOT the reason that the world hates us. At least under previous administrations we had some standing in Europe, now that even is gone. :doh:


-----

peace.

[Skeptic]

Nobody claims that WMD wasn't one of the primary reasons we went into Iraq. There were over a dozen UN Resolutions based on them which Saddam ignored. Frankie claims it was never about WMDs.

Saddam could have ignored hundreds of UN Resolutions, but without a real and imminent threat of WMDs there is ZERO moral justification to kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in an all-out invasion.

While you're at it, how about being fair and balanced and post all the quotes from your fellow left wingers who also touted that Saddam had WMD. You can start with Bill Clinton and John Kerry. Even though Clinton, Kerry and many others in our government strongly suspected that Saddam had WMDs, and sometimes used strong rhetoric for political purposes, they did not think that the level of certainty was sufficient to warrant killing tens of thousands of innocent people in a massive preemptive invasion!

Again, Clinton was wrong to give any support Bush's invasion.

Not so. The war was never exclusively about WMD. Regardless of other reasons, without clear hard evidence of WMDs posing a real, significant and imminent threat, there was NO justification to kill many thousands of innocent people in an invasion.

They are also waking up to the realization that you lefties are more interested in political games than you are the security and safety of Americans. The polls show Americans are moving away from Rightie rhetoric of "security and safety." More and more are saying: "We really got duped by the neocons once, and it ain't happening again!" From now on, true patriots with take anything the White House, Pentagon and CIA says with a grain of salt.

REAL long-term security and safety comes from seeing the consequences of our actions, maintaining friendship with allies, and developing new friendships. Trying to ensure security and safety only by maintaining a strong military, while aggressively using the military to bully and intimidate potential enemies is a misguided and losing strategy. Such a strategy might work in the short term, but not over the long haul. When Hitler learned this lesson, he snuffed himself.

[taoist]

I gave you :up: rep for this sentence. I will give you :down: rep for the way this post ends when I get a chance. Why thank you, or rasslesnass ya or whatever, deardelmar. Rep is supposed to be determined by the quality of the post, not the popularity of the sentiment, but hey, if you feel the need to cancel out rep for the first line, which certainly falls short of the quality of eloquence I prefer ... in presumed disfavor for the second, which seems far more grammatically and rhetorically challenging, to me, at least ... be my guest.

Whilst Skeptic rants and rails in his myopic vision of a Bush-less presidency, without regard to any of the consequences of a Bush impeachment on the structure of our government, more sober thinkers, those like myself, who love America warts are suitably content to consider this administration one of the warts. And, as pointed out by any number of others, Bush himself is by no means the ugliest wart on the elbow.

I remember hearing about the confidential instructions to the Secret Service given during his father's administration, "If anything happens to Bush, shoot Quayle." Rumor has it this sentiment has been given a new alternate life for the current protectors, "If anything happens to Cheney, shoot Bush." Skeptic no doubt feels they should both be shot, leaving us in the hands of ... who, Tom DeLay? Or perhaps he likes the idea of continuing the current trend toward splitting the country into two spitting moieties, perhaps until we find ourselves in a second civil war.

Hey, it could happen. Serbia got it together well enough to host an Olympic games before nationalistic progaganda split the country into the factions necessary to create the atrocities Milosevic is even now answering at the Hague. It doesn't take a lot work to consider the demarcation lines for splitting our country in two as well. All it would take is a disgruntled minority with enough power to organize the machine. With the dividing lines being drawn all around us, Skeptic gives us enough reason to suspect the loser of the next election may oppose the results violently, be that loser from the left or the right. We already know the right is fighting mad.

And because we're here, I might as well make the obligatory smack on Enyart, who has many times voiced his disdain for majority rule. Imagine that sentiment in the hands of a competent politician. And so, as ever, in this land of furious argument and personal umbrage, to you, gentle reader, I bid peace.

Jesse

[Skeptic]

What crimes???? This thread has over 2000 posts and you have to ask "what crimes"? Go back and read the first post in this thread.

You mean, 'For the good of terrorist all over the world'. Preemptive wars in the absence of a real, significant and imminent threat are wrong. Terrorist threats will always be with us, and we cannot predict when such threats are going to materialize. But, it is not ethical to wage preemptive wars against countries, which necessarily kills thousands of innocent people, in order to prevent possible future terrorist threats emanating from those countries. However, when there are specific identified terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, that have clearly posed a real and significant threat, then limited military action against such specific groups is justified. Invading entire countries in the hope that doing so will prevent "terrorist" dictators from becoming a future WMD threat is NOT morally justified. There are certain times, places and circumstances when massive military force against entire nations is justified. Preventing possible future terrorist threats is not one of them.

Oh, it's crimes against humanity which fuel your rhetoric? If that's the case, you should be exceedingly happy with Bush for removing some of the worlds worst perpetrators against humanity. Saddam and his sons brutally tortured, raped and murdered millions of people, Bush stopped him. Using one crime against humanity to prevent another is not justified. There were other ways of dealing with Saddam, who was not an imminent terrorist threat to America, and, in the months leading up to March 2003, was not an imminent threat to his own people, given that he was monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community. Saddam's past atrocities did not warrant the atrocity that was Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion!

The world has had animosity towards us for decades. And this animosity was dramatically amplified in March 2003.

You guys aren't gonna impeach anybody! You can't even stop Bush from appointing his judges! As the truth gets out, the right-wing controlled Congress will find it increasingly more difficult to support their Imperious Leader.

[HerodionRomulus]

Lies from the head Murderer

": We found the weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

[HerodionRomulus]

their Imperious Leader.

"By your command." :sinapisN:

[Jukia]

Lies from the head Murderer

": We found the weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

Well, they "thought" they found them. Shouldn't that count?

[aikido7]

More lies:

...and I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability*, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America so help me God."







__________________________________________________ __
* "wiggle room"

[BillyBob]

:yawn:

[simply one]

:yawn:


thats right billybob, YAWN AWAY YOUR PROBLEMS!!!!

cause, you know that makes them all better and they go away....

-----

peace.

[Frank Ernest]

REAL long-term security and safety comes from seeing the consequences of our actions, maintaining friendship with allies, and developing new friendships. Trying to ensure security and safety only by maintaining a strong military, while aggressively using the military to bully and intimidate potential enemies is a misguided and losing strategy. Such a strategy might work in the short term, but not over the long haul. When Hitler learned this lesson, he snuffed himself.
:darwinsm: What a twisted, backwards piece of tripe! Why is there no more USSR? No more Third Reich? No more Empire of Japan? Because we maintained a strong military and used it to "bully and intimidate" (and defeat) intractable enemies bent on our destruction.

Why do we still have a problem with North Korea? Because your :Commie: pansies decided that tea parties in Pyongyang were more effective than military force. What does North Korea do? They use their military to bully and intimidate potential enemies and they've gotten away with it for the last 50+ years. The misguided and losing strategy was exactly yours in all those instances.

So much for your idiot strategic sense. :dizzy: :loser:

[Frank Ernest]

More lies:

...and I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability*, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America so help me God."







__________________________________________________ __
* "wiggle room"

Stop bringing Clinton into the discussion. He was impeached.

[BillyBob]

thats right billybob, YAWN AWAY YOUR PROBLEMS!!!!

cause, you know that makes them all better and they go away....

-----

peace.

I'm just waiting for you commies to post something interesting....:yawn:

[aikido7]

Stop bringing Clinton into the discussion. He was impeached.I did not bring Clinton into the discussion. You did.

Those who feel under attack often blame others. Pointing out the speck in your brother's eye--that sort of thing.

Instead of unflinchingly facing the deluge of troublesome facts that do not fit your golden vision of how the Kingdom of God actually manifests itself here on earth, you opt for the easy way out.

No real surprise.

Using blame, jejune insults and feigning boredom, your good Pilate "clean conscience" defense leaves you safe for another day until the Judgement.

[BillyBob]

I wash my hands of you....

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: What a twisted, backwards piece of tripe! Why is there no more USSR? No more Third Reich? No more Empire of Japan?
USSR? They spent themselves into chaos. The light of democracy as a beacon--not a destructive laser--shown its light onto the Russian soul. And the influence of Lec Walesa and the unions didn't hurt. Gorbachev tore down no wall that I could see. But his flexibility and vision prepared the way for the people to act.
Third Reich? We will always cherish the honor of standing up to Facism and tyranny. A dispassionate view of those events shows that "rotten at the top" melagomania and a stubborn overreach on the Russian front were instrumental in Hitler's house of cards collapse.
Empire of Japan? As soon as emperor-worship and a nuclear first strike could be faced squarely and true soul-searching and forgiveness could be activated, Japan was already well on the way to use American capitalism to sneak in transistor radios under our barbed wire and hand GM a Toyota on a bamboo platter.Because we maintained a strong military and used it to "bully and intimidate" (and defeat) intractable enemies bent on our destruction.Bullying and intimidation, like Jesus said, have no place in our lives as Christians any longer..Why do we still have a problem with North Korea? Because your :Commie: pansies decided that tea parties in Pyongyang were more effective than military force.Tea parties--as Bush will not publicly admit but is now going back to scheduling--are more useful than using military force. And a little non-violent economic/social protest might work a little wonder, too. There was the "Boston Tea Party," too. Remember? What does North Korea do? They use their military to bully and intimidate potential enemies and they've gotten away with it for the last 50+ years.What would Jesus do? Recognize and acknowlege the sense of failure and real pain behind all bullying and intimidation? Forgive them and introduce them to the Kingdom of God?
So much for your idiot strategic sense. :dizzy: :loser:Those who saw Jesus as just another first-century Jewish charismatic saw an idiot's strategy. Those who saw it as a threat plotted his death. As Christians we all need to reach another conclusion, don't you think?


Jesus was a PANSY???

[aikido7]

I wash my hands of you....Better wake up, Pontius! You have trouble in your Empire!

[Skeptic]

What a twisted, backwards piece of tripe! Why is there no more USSR? No more Third Reich? No more Empire of Japan? Because we maintained a strong military and used it to "bully and intimidate" (and defeat) intractable enemies bent on our destruction.

Why do we still have a problem with North Korea? Because your commie pansies decided that tea parties in Pyongyang were more effective than military force. What does North Korea do? They use their military to bully and intimidate potential enemies and they've gotten away with it for the last 50+ years. The misguided and losing strategy was exactly yours in all those instances.

So much for your idiot strategic sense. Let's see... What do Germany, Japan, North Korea and the USSR have in common? ... Oh, that's right! They are all NATIONS consisting of millions of people!!

Other than Iraq (which was not a threat), are we fighting nations today? No. Actually, we stopped fighting the nation of Iraq soon after Saddam's government collapsed. Now, we are only fighting (and fueling) Iraqi nationalism and anti-American hatred.

If you ask Bush, we are fighting TERRORISM! Can we defeat terrorism militarily, like we can defeat nations militarily? NO!! But Bush & Co, as well as Righties such as yourself, talk as if there is no difference between fighting nations and fighting terrorism. The U.S. can defeat any nation militarily. We CANNOT defeat terrorism militarily!! In fact, we cannot totally defeat terrorism at all. At some level, terrorism will always be with us. Our only hope is to keep it to a minimum and work to eliminate the sources of terrorism. This cannot be done militarily!

Of course we need a strong military! I never said otherwise. But, in minimizing terrorism, REAL long-term security and safety comes, not from futilely trying to kill all terrorists, but from seeing the consequences of our actions, maintaining friendship with allies, and developing new friendships, as well as identifying and reducing the sources of anti-American hatred and other factors that lead people into wanting to commit terrorist acts. Trying to ensure security and safety ONLY by maintaining a strong military, while aggressively using the military to bully and intimidate potential terrorist enemies is a misguided and losing strategy. Such a strategy might temporarily work to keep terrorism at bay in the short term, but not over the long haul. The more aggressively we use our military against terrorists, the greater the recruitment of new terrorists will be. This does not mean that we should never respond militarily to significant acts of terrorism. It means that we should not rely only on military responses to terrorism!! And we should NEVER fight terrorism by relying on preemptive wars against nations that do not pose a real, significant and imminent threat! Such preemptive wars serve only to increase anti-American hatred and seed the causes of terrorism in the region.

[aikido7]

Let's see... What do Germany, Japan, North Korea and the USSR have in common? ... Oh, that's right! They are all NATIONS consisting of millions of people!!

Other than Iraq (which was not a threat), are we fighting nations today? No. Actually, we stopped fighting the nation of Iraq soon after Saddam's government collapsed. Now, we are only fighting (and fueling) Iraqi nationalism and anti-American hatred.

If you ask Bush, we are fighting TERRORISM! Can we defeat terrorism militarily, like we can defeat nations militarily? NO!! But Bush & Co, as well as Righties such as yourself, talk as if there is no difference between fighting nations and fighting terrorism. The U.S. can defeat any nation militarily. We CANNOT defeat terrorism militarily!! In fact, we cannot totally defeat terrorism at all. At some level, terrorism will always be with us. Our only hope is to keep it to a minimum and work to eliminate the sources of terrorism. This cannot be done militarily!

Of course we need a strong military! I never said otherwise. But, in minimizing terrorism, REAL long-term security and safety comes, not from futilely trying to kill all terrorists, but from seeing the consequences of our actions, maintaining friendship with allies, and developing new friendships, as well as identifying and reducing the sources of anti-American hatred and other factors that lead people into wanting to commit terrorist acts. Trying to ensure security and safety ONLY by maintaining a strong military, while aggressively using the military to bully and intimidate potential terrorist enemies is a misguided and losing strategy. Such a strategy might temporarily work to keep terrorism at bay in the short term, but not over the long haul. The more aggressively we use our military against terrorists, the greater the recruitment of new terrorists will be. This does not mean that we should never respond militarily to significant acts of terrorism. It means that we should not rely only on military responses to terrorism!! And we should NEVER fight terrorism by relying on preemptive wars against nations that do not pose a real, significant and imminent threat! Such preemptive wars serve only to increase anti-American hatred and seed the causes of terrorism in the region.

Skeptic, keep holding their clay feet to the fire. I noticed on "Meet the Press" that the Christo-facist GOP Death Cult is now saying the Downing Street Memo has been "discreditied." Say it often enough and loud enough and I guess Tinkerbell will come back.

Instead of acting bored and posting smilies, some on this thread could start reading and examining FACTS and EVIDENCE

[simply one]

aikido and skeptic: keep it up!

the smilies and ignoring of the facts simply means that deep down, the others on this thread know they are wrong, yet their pride and conservative propaganda will not let them accept it.

Besides, there's only so many smilies on TOL... and there's plenty of facts out there.

----

peace.