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.

[BillyBob]

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,

Not so, I have been fighting this battle with these two knuckleheads for a few years now. I have presented the facts and the left-wing extremist commies would rather ignore them and continue to post the democrap talking points....over...and over....and over...:yawn:

yet their pride and conservative propaganda will not let them accept it.

:darwinsm:



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



Here's a smilie for you, read my lips. CleverDan

[aikido7]

Not so, I have been fighting this battle with these two knuckleheads for a few years now. I have presented the facts and the left-wing extremist commies would rather ignore them and continue to post the democrap talking points....over...and over....and over...:yawn:It's hard being a member of the crypto-facist Christian death cult isn't it? Such a lot of work involved!

This just in: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said the leaked minute showed Blair had “agreed to an illegal regime change with the Bush administration. It set out to create the justification for going to war. It was to be war by any means.”







Now tell us again how many ways will you come up with to ignore fact-based REALITY

[Frank Ernest]

It's hard being a member of the crypto-facist Christian death cult isn't it? Such a lot of work involved!
:darwinsm: :mock::aikido:7. You misspelled "fascist."

DAN RATHER ALERT!

This just in: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said the leaked minute showed Blair had “agreed to an illegal regime change with the Bush administration. It set out to create the justification for going to war. It was to be war by any means.”
END DAN RATHER ALERT!

Now tell us again how many ways will you come up with to ignore fact-based REALITY
"fact-based REALITY" :darwinsm:
I don't ignore facts or reality. You, however, are beginning to have possibilitiies. :idea:

[Frank Ernest]

I did not bring Clinton into the discussion. You did.
You did. It was unmistakeable. :rolleyes:

Those who feel under attack often blame others. Pointing out the speck in your brother's eye--that sort of thing.
Sure. Every lie-beral Dummocrat :Commie: does that. What is new here? :confused:

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.
:darwinsm: Yes, that is typically what lie-beral Dummocrat :Commie:s do. :up:

No real surprise.
Correctamundo! :cloud9:

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

[aikido7]

Dan Rather, spelling, Liberals....

You do stay on message.

What were you doing on July 4, 2002? And what was our own government doing?

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

[Frank Ernest]

Dan Rather, spelling, Liberals....

You do stay on message.

What were you doing on July 4, 2002? And what was our own government doing?

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
:darwinsm: Ok, what does King George III have to do with anything? Or are you seeking new ways to soil yourself in public?

[simply one]

Dan Rather, spelling, Liberals....

You do stay on message.

What were you doing on July 4, 2002? And what was our own government doing?

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

what an intersting quote. sounds eeirily applicable to today...

anyway, remember, only 10% of the colonists really fought in/for the revolution, and many many others sympathized with those in power, and assisted the oppressive regime, in hope of recieving makor benefits later on... and of course, after the war, EVERYONE had suddenly been on the justice.

10 years from today: anyone want to pencil me in for some revision of history and an anti-evil-liberal historians crusade? I just want to make my reservations at a hotel near some universities today!

-----

peace.

[aikido7]

what an intersting quote. sounds eeirily applicable to today...

anyway, remember, only 10% of the colonists really fought in/for the revolution, and many many others sympathized with those in power, and assisted the oppressive regime, in hope of recieving makor benefits later on... and of course, after the war, EVERYONE had suddenly been on the justice.

10 years from today: anyone want to pencil me in for some revision of history and an anti-evil-liberal historians crusade? I just want to make my reservations at a hotel near some universities today!

-----

peace.Yeah--the leopard of fascism--uh, facism--er fasism--never really changes his spots.

Here's a pretty good academic survey of facism and there are plenty of other eerie parallels:
http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/ara/pde/facism.html

So, simply one, I take it you don't you like the story that all colonial America united against British rule and good won over evil? Why do you think we have Washington on our money?


BTW, some of these Christian death cultists need to pay some attention to their own intelligensia. Here's some links to get them started:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=downing%20street%20memo

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

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22068/?comments=view&cID=6697&pID=6691

[simply one]

So, simply one, I take it you don't you like the story that all colonial America united against British rule and good won over evil? Why do you think we have Washington on our money?


Oh the wonderful thing that is 3rd grade history.... :ha: :ha:

while we're at it, why dont we bring up the happy Thanksgiving, with the Indians and colonists all holding hands a sings with rainbows and fuzzy bunny rabbits? Or maybe the fact the the colonists shot the Indians and brought over diseases which ravaged the native population?

But, yes, I don't take the stroy that all of colonial America heroically took up the call of 'freedom' and threw off the British yoke. And with Washington... well, every patriotic, nationalistic, chest-beating movement needs a mascot! And who better than an actual patriotic nationalist?! (it saves a lot of revisionist history!).

-----

peace

[Frank Ernest]

:yawn: :loser::loser:

[simply one]

:yawn: :loser::loser:


Hahaha. What I said wasn't meant to be some kind of serious rhetorical statement....

sometimes sarcasm and humor get people to think far more than reason does... :think:

although in your case, unfortunately, neither seem to be working :kookoo:

-----

peace

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: The "just kidding" evasion. :loser:

[simply one]

:darwinsm: The "just kidding" evasion. :loser:

Actually, believe the actual historical stuff (like there not being a fuzzy happy thanksgiving) that I said... But I said it sarcastically to try to get people not to be turned off.

Once again, with you, neither reason nor humor seem to penetrate your skull. :kookoo:


-----

peace.

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: The "just kidding" evasion. :loser:You've gotta be KIDDING!!!!

[simply one]

3 years, 181 days until this thread can definitely end.

unfortunately, thats 3 years, 181 days too long.

who knows, maybe the democrats will have some kind of stunning victory in 06...

-----

peace.

[Frank Ernest]

Actually, believe the actual historical stuff (like there not being a fuzzy happy thanksgiving) that I said... But I said it sarcastically to try to get people not to be turned off.

Once again, with you, neither reason nor humor seem to penetrate your skull. :kookoo:


-----

peace.
:darwinsm: The "mentally deficient" attack.

[Frank Ernest]

3 years, 181 days until this thread can definitely end.

unfortunately, thats 3 years, 181 days too long.
:yawn:

who knows, maybe the democrats will have some kind of stunning victory in 06...

-----

peace.
With stellar performers like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, how can they lose? :darwinsm:

[Jukia]

How in the world did Frank get along before smilies?

[Delmar]

How in the world did Frank get along before smilies?
How do you know he didn't always have them. Perhaps little Frank drew them by hand and even animated them by drawing them on a flip pad, as far as you know.

[Jukia]

How do you know he didn't always have them. Perhaps little Frank drew them by hand and even animated them by drawing them on a flip pad, as far as you know.
OK, that is a good one. Sort of like what we did in grade school. thanks, your comment made my morning.

[Frank Ernest]

How do you know he didn't always have them. Perhaps little Frank drew them by hand and even animated them by drawing them on a flip pad, as far as you know.
Have some points! :thumb: :jump:

[Frank Ernest]

OK, that is a good one. Sort of like what we did in grade school. thanks, your comment made my morning.
Have some points! :down: :darwinsm:

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: The "mentally deficient" attack.Uh--what was that again....?

[Frank Ernest]

Uh--what was that again....?
:darwinsm: You got it!

[Skeptic]

Can we get back to a little substance?

Frankie, show us that you can post without all those smilies by finally responding to this: 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

[Skeptic]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm a commie, ... whatever. If you disagree with this post, just explain WHY you disagree. Simply demonizing the messenger won't do.

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.

[Skeptic]

Even some in our military agree with me.

My emphasis and (comments):

================================
Officers: Military can't solve insurgency
Politics seen as only way to stop violence in Iraq

By Tom Lasseter
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

June 13, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A growing number of senior U.S. military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. troops during the past two years.

Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is through Iraqi politics – an arena that has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.

"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."

Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" – pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere. (Like I said in my last post, the more aggressively we use our military against terrorists, the greater the recruitment of new terrorists will be)

"Like in Baghdad," Casey said during an interview last week. "We push in Baghdad – they're down to about less than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week – but in north-center (Iraq) . . . they've gone up," he said. "The political process will be the decisive element."

The recognition that a military solution is not in the offing has led U.S. and Iraqi officials to signal they are willing to negotiate with insurgent groups, or their intermediaries.

"It has evolved in the course of normal business," said a senior U.S. diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of U.S. policy to defer to the Iraqi government on Iraqi political matters. "We have now encountered people who at least claim to have some form of a relationship with the insurgency."

The message is markedly different from previous statements by U.S. officials who spoke of quashing the insurgency by rounding up or killing "dead enders" loyal to former dictator Saddam Hussein.

As recently as two weeks ago on CNN's "Larry King Live," Vice President Dick Cheney said he believed the insurgency was in its "last throes."

But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of the 55 Iraqis portrayed in the military's "deck of cards" have been killed or captured.

Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of recruits, a dynamic that is fueled in part by tribal members seeking revenge for relatives killed in fighting.

"We can't kill them all," Wellman said. "When I kill one, I create three."

Last month was one of the deadliest since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in May 2003, a month that saw six U.S. troops killed by hostile fire. In May 2005, 67 U.S. troops were killed by hostile fire, the fourth-highest tally since the war began, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an Internet site that uses official casualty reports to categorize deaths by a variety of criteria.

At least 26 troops have been killed by insurgents in June, bringing to 1,311 the number of U.S. troops killed by hostile action. An additional 391 service members have died as a result of accidents or illness.

The Iraqi interior minister said last week that the insurgency has killed 12,000 Iraqis in two years. He did not say how he arrived at the figure.

U.S. officials had hoped that January's national elections would blunt the insurgency by giving the population hope for its political future. But so far, the political process has not in any meaningful way included Iraq's Sunni Muslim population.

Most of Iraq's Sunni Muslims, motivated either by fear or a call for a boycott, did not vote, and they hold 17 seats in the 275-member parliament.

There was a post-election lull in bloodshed, a period that saw daily attack figures dip into the 30s. But with the seating of the interim government April 28, attacks spiked back to 70 a day. More than 700 Iraqis have been killed since then.

The former Iraqi minister of electricity, Ayham al-Samarie, has said he's consulted with U.S. diplomatic officials about his negotiations with two major insurgent groups to form a political front of sorts. There has been similar talk in the past – notably by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's administration, which spoke of inclusion through amnesty – but nothing has come of it.

At the heart of the problem is the continued failure of U.S. and Iraqi officials to bring the nation's Sunni minority, with more than 5 million people, to the political table. Sunnis now find themselves in a country ruled by the Shiite and Kurdish political parties once brutally oppressed by Hussein, a Sunni.

With Shiites and Kurds stocking the nation's security forces with members of their militias, Sunnis have been marginalized and, according to some analysts in Iraq, have become more willing to join armed groups.

U.S. officials prefer not to talk about the situation along religious lines, but they acknowledge that one of the key obstacles to resolving Iraq's problems is the difference between Sunni and Shiite religious institutions.

Shiites are organized around their council of clerics – led in Iraq by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani – that issues religious edicts the Shiite faithful follow as law. Sunnis, on the other hand, have no such unifying structure.

The difference was made clear in January when one list of candidates formed under the guidance of al-Sistani was the choice of almost all Shiites voting.

Those Sunnis who did go to the polls split their votes among myriad organizations including those backed by a presumptive monarch, a group of communists and a religious group that may or may not have been boycotting the election.

Sunni Muslims near downtown Baghdad have only to drive down the street to see how precarious their position in Iraqi politics and society is these days. On roads near the party headquarters for the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is in large part shaping the policy of the nation, Kurdish militia members patrol the streets.

The troops are ostensibly part of the nation's army, but they still wear militia uniforms and, as is the case with some in Kurdistan, many either can't or won't speak Arabic.

One of the roads they patrol has been named Badr Street, for the armed wing of the Supreme Council. There is a large billboard with the looming face of Abdul Aziz al Hakim, the Supreme Council's leader.

Unless Sunnis develop confidence that the government will represent them, few here see the insurgency fading.

Asked about the success in suppressing the insurgency in Baghdad recently – the result of a series of large-scale raids called Operation Lightning that targeted primarily Sunni neighborhoods – Brig. Gen. Alston said that he expects the violence to return.

"We have taken down factories, major cells; we have made good progress in (stopping) the production of (car bombs) in Baghdad," Alston said. "Now, do I think that there will be more (bombs) in Baghdad? Yes, I do."

Source (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050613/news_1n13military.html)

[Mr. 5020]

Skeptic,

Would you say that your write more or less than 50% of what you post?

[Skeptic]

Skeptic,

Would you say that your write more or less than 50% of what you post? Is this yet another attempt to distract from the message by focusing on the messenger?

Most of my posts are my own words. But I do not hesitate to post supporting news and opinion articles of others. There are many writers who often do a better job of expressing themselves than me. In the case of my last post, the news article clearly confirms my position that terrorism cannot be stopped by military means.

When the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, says: "I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," the might-makes-right Righties should know about it.

When the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey, calls the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea," the kill-all-terrorists Righties should know about it.

When an officer who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, says "We can't kill them all, ... When I kill one, I create three." the Bush-can-do-no-wrong Righties should know about it.

[On Fire]

1,606 days in office.....and not impeached.

[Gerald]

1,606 days in office.....and not impeached.:yawn:

[On Fire]

I didn't say it was exciting. Just a fact.

[Holly]

1,606 days in office.....and not impeached.
1,372 days since September 11, and Osama Bin Ladin is still at large. :down:

[Gerald]

1,372 days since September 11, and Osama Bin Ladin is still at large. :down:I still suspect he's dead, buried under a mountain at Tora Bora.

But he's such a useful boogeyman...

[aikido7]

1,606 days in office.....and not impeached.1,704 American soldiers dead.....and not telling the truth.

[intro2faith]

1,704 American soldiers dead.....and not telling the truth.

Puh-leaz. :doh:

[Frank Ernest]

Can we get back to a little substance?
:darwinsm: You first.

Frankie, show us that you can post without all those smilies by finally responding to this: Are you calling Bush and company liars?
No. :drum: :Commie::loser:
JESSE JACKSON ALERT!
:skeptic:, When are you :Commie:s going to stop lying, denying, decrying, and falsifying?

[Frank Ernest]

1,704 American soldiers dead.....and not telling the truth.
Anti-war creeps - Encouraging the enemy and not telling the truth.

[simply one]

Anti-war creeps - Encouraging the enemy and not telling the truth.

How in your God's name are THE FACTS not the truth and encouraging the enemy????? :madmad:

THE FACTS ARE: THERE HAVE BEEN 1703 DEATHS OF US SOLDIERS IN IRAQ AND ALMOST 13000 WOUNDED!! [http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf] from the department of defense!

Not to mention, the 22000-25000 civilian Iraqis... but they're not real people cause their not American Christians, right?source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ (independant organization studying civilian deaths in Iraq)

1,606 days in office.....and not impeached.

1606 days with Republicans misleading the American people and maintaining control of Congress.... We'll see when Novemeber 2006 rolls around....

-----

peace

[7cworldwide]

45,000,000+ innocents dead on American soil in the Secular Humanists war on fetuses since 1973. You wanna talk death tolls? You make me sick.

I can't wait until November 2006. The super-majority will be super-er...

No matter how many times the GOP gaffes, the Dems always make themselves look even worse... according to leader Dean, I'm a stupid, evil Christian that's never worked an honest day in my life.

:kookoo:

[simply one]

45,000,000+ innocents dead on American soil in the Secular Humanists war on fetuses since 1973. You wanna talk death tolls? You make me sick.

I can't wait until November 2006. The super-majority will be super-er...

No matter how many times the GOP gaffes, the Dems always make themselves look even worse... according to leader Dean, I'm a stupid, evil Christian that's never worked an honest day in my life.

:kookoo:

1) This isn't another one of those freakin abortion threads! Hopefully you can go the way of Shamgar... but maybe they'll act faster.

2) Abortion is wrong, thats a given, but not an absolute. THATS WHY THERE'S OTHER THREADS TO DEBATE THIS!!!!

3) If abortion is so wrong why hasn't your "super-majority" outlawed it eh? :rolleyes:

BUT THERES OTHER THREADS TO DEBATE ABORTION TO GO AWAY.

And, on the subject of Dean: he has energy and power and can see what's wrong, and he's good at whipping people into a frenzy (on boths sides, for him and against him). BUt he brings a passion which is hard to find, except with neo-cons who sit and plan their global corporate takeover...
yay for conspiracy theories!

anyways, please respond on the subject of the war and Bush, not abortion (WHICH IS FOR OTHER THREADS!)

-----

peace.

[Mr. 5020]

Is this yet another attempt to distract from the message by focusing on the messenger?
Not really. I was just wondering, because it seems like everytime I catch a post of yours, it's written by someone else.

[aikido7]

Anti-war creeps - Encouraging the enemy and not telling the truth.

ANTI-WAR CREEPS--Sixty-eight per cent of Americans.
ECOURAGING THE ENEMY--"Bring 'em on!"
NOT TELLING THE TRUTH--"We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

[aikido7]

Hey now. I think about seven--count 'em--seven memos are out now. Soemone is leaking these, breaking the law, to show that George Bush lied to America so he could spin the best ideals of America and fool us all into breaking moral and national law.

All these new memos just go to show what some of us picked up on three years ago--before anyone died in this dirty little personal vendetta from our glorious president.

Look the memos up. They're just starting to make a dent in our collective density. Watergate? Well, the "drip, drip, drip" is awfully familiar.

In 2002, George W. Bush fixed the facts. And we had been bombing Iraq before this illegal war officially started.

He didn't have an exit strategy. He still doesn't. Arrogance, fatal hubris and thinking you have a pipeline to God can do that to you.

And every day real human beings who love, were loved and once saw sunsets glow and children laugh, pay the ultimate price because of it.

"Freedom is on the march."

It was sick then and it is tragically so now....

[dRock]

whatever man... :nono:

[aikido7]

whatever man... :nono:Denial from a "right wing zealot"! ...far out, man....

[dRock]

Aw, man...please don't call me conservative,
God creates, man just perverts it

-"Move" by John Reuben

[Frank Ernest]

How in your God's name are THE FACTS not the truth and encouraging the enemy????? :madmad:

THE FACTS ARE: THERE HAVE BEEN 1703 DEATHS OF US SOLDIERS IN IRAQ AND ALMOST 13000 WOUNDED!! [http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf] from the department of defense!

Not to mention, the 22000-25000 civilian Iraqis... but they're not real people cause their not American Christians, right?source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ (independant organization studying civilian deaths in Iraq)
:darwinsm: Iteration of continual stupid rant.

1606 days with Republicans misleading the American people and maintaining control of Congress.... We'll see when Novemeber 2006 rolls around....

-----

peace
Yeah, we sure will. Make sure that Howard Dean, Al Franken, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi get more nation-wide TV time. :up:

[Frank Ernest]

ANTI-WAR CREEPS--Sixty-eight per cent of Americans.
Lie.

ECOURAGING THE ENEMY--"Bring 'em on!"
:darwinsm: Yeah, baby! :up:

NOT TELLING THE TRUTH--"We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
Who said that?

[Skeptic]

Who said that? "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush, May 30, 2003

[aikido7]

Aw, man...please don't call me conservative,
God creates, man just perverts it

-"Move" by John Reuben

Sorry, John. I think you misunderstood big time. I did not call you "conservative." I was talking about drock, the self-described "Protestant Christian Right Wing Zealot."

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: Iteration of continual stupid rant.

Yeah, we sure will. Make sure that Howard Dean, Al Franken, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi get more nation-wide TV time. :up:Swallowing Rovian spew again, eh? Do a Nexus Search. Check the numbers. The amount of "TV time" is easily verifiable. STILL can't tolerate dissent? Maybe you need to move to--to--uh...AMERICA!!!

[7cworldwide]

anyways, please respond on the subject of the war and Bush, not abortion (WHICH IS FOR OTHER THREADS!)

I was responding to your rant on death tolls. People like you call people like me "hypocrite" all the time. I just thought I'd turn the tables on you... you cry peace as your kind wages all out war on the most innocent and defenseless of humankind... in the name of special interest groups like NOW and NARAL.

Bush's war may have ill effects but at least it does have a few valid causes.

[aikido7]

Bush's war may have ill effects but at least it does have a few valid causes.
Good intentions, understandable reasons, excusable motivations...

Doesn't anyone care about real world results anymore?

[Skeptic]

[QUOTE]... as your kind wages all out war on the most innocent and defenseless of humankind... Fetuses are not human, but only potential humans. Abortion is not murder. Save your responses for another thread.

Bush's war may have ill effects but at least it does have a few valid causes. Bush's war was not only unnecessary and unjustified, it has actually harmed the causes it claims to have! If the invasion of Iraq was meant to somehow curb terrorism, it has had just the opposite effect.

[7cworldwide]

Fetuses are not human, but only potential humans. Abortion is not murder. Save your responses for another thread.

Bush's war was not only unnecessary and unjustified, it has actually harmed the causes it claims to have! If the invasion of Iraq was meant to somehow curb terrorism, it has had just the opposite effect.

You're absolutely wrong on fetuses but that's no longer on topic so I'll relent...

Clinton & Congress thought it was necessary/justified. America hasn't been the harmful element. Terrorists have. These Islamo-fascists are killing their own. That's the primary cause of the civilian dead in Iraq. I would argue that Iraq has curbed terrorism. How many successful al-Qaeda attacks have occurred outside Iraq since the war began?

SAY NO TO WAR (unless a Democrat is president)

[Knight]

SAY NO TO WAR (unless a Democrat is president):chuckle:

[aikido7]

Thanks to a shrinking attention span and a rise in civic and historical illiteracy, this information has often escaped us:

Advocacy of pacifism can be found far back in history and literature, for example in the Classical world. Two instances from the Peloponnesian War 431–404 BC that have come down to us are the non-violent protest of Hegetorides of Thasos, and the Athenian women's anti-war sex strike in Aristophanes' comedy Lysistrata.

Some religious organizations, such as the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Amish, and the Mennonites, have been pacific for centuries. In the 19th century pacifist sentiment grew. Many socialist groups and movements in that century were pacifist, arguing that war by its nature was a type of governmental coercion of the working class, who were forced to fight and die in wars of no benefit to them at the behest of their political and economic masters who never suffer in the war's front lines.

In Aotearoa/New Zealand during the latter half of the 19th century the British, and its colonial settlers, tried many tactics to grab land from the Maori, including warfare. In one case a Maori leader was so inspiring that he was able to encourage warriors to stand up for their rights without using their weapons. This in an atmosphere where similar warriors had defeated opposing forces in earlier years. Te Whiti-o-Rongomai convinced 2000 people to welcome battle-hardened soldiers into their village and even offer them food and drink. This same, peaceful, leader allowed himself and his people to be arrested without resistance.

In the aftermath of the slaughter of World War I there was a great revulsion with war in much of the West, and pacifist doctrines gained many new adherents. However pacifist literature or public advocation of anti-war ideals was banned in some nations, such as Italy under Mussolini, the Soviet Union, and slightly later Germany after the rise of Hitler. In these nations, pacifism was denounced as simple cowardice. With the start of World War II, pacifist sentiment declined. Bertrand Russell argued that the necessity of defeating Hitler was a unique circumstance where war was not the worst of the possible evils; he called his position "relative pacifism". Even H. G. Wells, who had claimed after the armistice ending World War I that the British had suffered more from the war than they would have from submission to Germany, later urged in 1941 a large-scale British offensive on the continent of Europe to combat Hitler and Nazism.

(There was, however, an active pacifist movement throughout much of American and world history during modern times)

Pacifist sentiment rose again a generation later in the 1960s.

It is ironic now that many atheistic nations have used pacifism and non-violent resistance to affect important social change using Jesus' original baseline teachings on the subject while America justifies its myth of violence being redemptive through "just war" and "obedience to authority" sorts of rationalizations...

[simply one]

ai! what a wonderfully hypocritical country we live in!!!

when confronted with facts, people say "nay" then go on to say "you're not telling the truth". So, they are confronted with the facts again and.... its a vicious cycle.

Christians calling for war and intolerance, and atheists call for peace!

Conservatives blaming democrats for abortion, yet they do nothing about it after 5 years in absolute control!

People who say things as they are are ridiculed and those who twist things to serve them are praised!

Self-proclaimed 'patriots' speak out against those who exercise their basic American right to free speech!

once again, what a wonderful country it is that we live in... :doh: :help: :cry:

-----

peace.

[simply one]

and what rants I can go on about this place...

[Skeptic]

Clinton & Congress thought it was necessary/justified. Clinton was wrong to support Bush's invasion.

Congress was duped by Bush & Co.

America hasn't been the harmful element. Terrorists have. Iraq had nothing to do with the so-called "war on terrorism."
Iraq was not a terrorist threat to America.
Thanks to Bush, America WAS the most significantly harmful element in Iraq.

These Islamo-fascists are killing their own. Americans have NEVER done killed their own! Unless you include the Civil War, and unnecessarily sending our own into battle in Vietnam and Iraq.

That's the primary cause of the civilian dead in Iraq. Wrong.

For conservative figures, see this (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/).

I would argue that Iraq has curbed terrorism.How many successful al-Qaeda attacks have occurred outside Iraq since the war began? How many successful al-Qaeda attacks occurred against U.S. civilians or facilities before Bush's unnecessary invasion? Not many. Al-Qaeda was lucky to have gotten away with 9/11. It would not have taken that much to thwart 9/11 by closing a few loopholes. Al-Qaeda plans their attacks for some time before carrying them out. Who knows what is in the works for the U.S.?

Like I said before, military force can lead to temporary decreases in terrorism. There was an understandable temporary decrease in international terrorism after 9/11. It was, however, in the Bush Administration's political interest to keep those numbers low, following 9/11, in order to convince the public that he was doing a good job at fighting terrorism. They tried to fudge on the 2003 numbers (source (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/041605A.shtml)). Therefore, it is wise to be skeptical of low numbers.

I'm not aware of any connection between U.S. military action in Iraq and any alleged statistically significant decrease in anti-U.S. terrorism. There might, however, be a connection between Bush's invasion and an increase in international terrorism!

Worldwide International Terrorist Attacks:

2005 -- ?
2004 -- 651
2003 -- 208 .... March, 2003 - Bush's invasion of Iraq
2002 -- 205
2001 -- 348 .... October 2001- Invasion of Afghanistan
2000 -- 426
1999 -- 392
1998 -- 242
1997 -- 304
1996 -- 296
1995 -- 440
1994 -- 321
1993 -- 431
1992 -- 364
1991 -- 567
1990 -- 456

Sources:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10235.htm
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1999/review.html
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt1998/review.html
http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm

[7cworldwide]

For conservative figures, see this (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/).


Where are the numbers for Iraqi civilians killed by Americans vs. by Islamic terrorists? That's what I want to see. This Iraqi body count site attempts to give the impression that an American bomber (pictured on the site homepage) is responsible for the deaths of civilians. America doesn't target civilians. That is what is implied here. That's bogus and you know it is.

Vilify America... that's what it's all about.

[Frank Ernest]

"We have found the weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush, May 30, 2003
That settles it then. Let's move on, shall we?

[aikido7]

ai! what a wonderfully hypocritical country we live in!!!

when confronted with facts, people say "nay" then go on to say "you're not telling the truth". So, they are confronted with the facts again and.... its a vicious cycle.

Christians calling for war and intolerance, and atheists call for peace!

Conservatives blaming democrats for abortion, yet they do nothing about it after 5 years in absolute control!

People who say things as they are are ridiculed and those who twist things to serve them are praised!

Self-proclaimed 'patriots' speak out against those who exercise their basic American right to free speech!

once again, what a wonderful country it is that we live in... :doh: :help: :cry:

-----

peace.And both hypocrisy and false piety were Jesus' primary concern. Dumbing him down into an idol to worship or finding out the best way to get to heaven are gross misunderstandings of the coming Kingdom of God....

But, meanwhile, back to the thread: Bush should be impeached!

Now whether he CAN be or WILL be is another matter....

It is taking awhile for the nation's reactivity and strong emotions to subside and congeal into common sense, moral outrage and a measured response to the events of the last four years.

Remember--the neo-con Christian death cult wing of our government has done nothing but sown division into us--throughout the land and in online forums like this. They have fostered in-fighting and confusion using tactics out of Karl Rove's own playbook--a set of rules which all scoundrels play by to one degree or another. Our nation has been operating for too long as if it did not have any other choices except to "give in" or to "fight back."

The conservative cruelty has had a stranglehold on the media for years and myself and others have been allowing ourselves to be deluged by the one-sided pontificating. It has twisted our very awareness of what is good, real and worthwhile. We really didn't feel we had any other choice than to assent to the "Father knows best" mantra. Like parrots, when we feel alone and afraid our first instinct is to join up with the flock.

Unfortunately George Bush's court couriers have set up this flock and it has long lived out its usefulness. A few centuries ago, such a governmental approach might have been normal--even necessary.

But that was then.

And this is now.

Impeach the bum--and bring our kids home!

[simply one]

That settles it then. Let's move on, shall we?

I hope that you're joking. Otherwise, I've just lost all respect that I have for you.

Sheesh!

[Skeptic]

Where are the numbers for Iraqi civilians killed by Americans vs. by Islamic terrorists? That's what I want to see. This Iraqi body count site attempts to give the impression that an American bomber (pictured on the site homepage) is responsible for the deaths of civilians. America doesn't target civilians. That is what is implied here. That's bogus and you know it is.

Vilify America... that's what it's all about. My bottom line has always been that, if Bush had not unnecessarily and immorally invaded Iraq in March 2003, regardless of who killed them, those many thousands of innocent men, women and children would be alive today!

No unnecessary invasion = No unnecessary deaths of American troops
No unnecessary invasion = No unnecessary deaths of Iraqi civilians
No unnecessary invasion = No unnecessary deaths of Iraqi non-civilians
No unnecessary invasion = No bloody insurgency
No unnecessary invasion = No foreigners coming in to fight Americans
No unnecessary invasion = No foreigners coming in to kill Iraqis
No unnecessary invasion = No boost in anti-American hatred
No unnecessary invasion = No boost in recruitment of new terrorists

If the U.S. had not unnecessarily invaded Iraq, and Saddam had not been overthrown or assassinated by now, he would have continued to be boxed in and monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community, with continued occasional limited bombing of whatever lame military facilities he still had if he showed any aggression. Therefore, it was very unlikely that Saddam would have tried to pull any of the kind of murderous crap he pulled in the late 1980's and early 1990's. There were other less reckless and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam.

[Skeptic]

Bush should be impeached!

Now whether he CAN be or WILL be is another matter.... :thumb:

[aikido7]

Watch for more orchestrated attacks on the memos. The so-called "liberal media" is already going through the motions of their fake "watchdog" virture. Check out this from http://www.dailyhowler.com/index.shtml:

NEWEST ATTACK ON THE MEMOS: You can be sure of death and taxes. And you can be sure of one more thing; when your “press corps” makes a mistake, they’re always the first to deny it. Today, the Washington Post editorial board joins the New York Times news division, arguing that the Downing Street memos haven’t been covered because they aren’t really worth squat. Complaining about those bloggers’ “demands,” the Post lays down the gauntlet:

WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (6/15/05): Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have not paid more attention to [the memos]. Though we can't speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002.

“The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known,” the Post says. But the arguments offered are utterly foolish. The memos go well beyond what was previously know, although the editors pretend not to know it.

First, the Downing Street memo seems to say that, by July 2002, Bush had already decided “to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” But this isn’t what Bush was saying at the time; at the time, Bush was insisting that he viewed war with Iraq as the last possible option. To the Post, of course, this is all piffle. “Three summers ago the pages of this and other newspapers were filled with reports about military planning for war to remove Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bush's determination to force a showdown,” the editors huff. Indeed, they quote from their own 8/4/02 editorial: "Debate over whether the United States should go to war against Iraq has lurched into a higher gear." But the memo doesn’t say that a debate was being conducted or that conditional planning was under way; it seems to say that Bush had already settled on war, at a time when he was loudly saying different. Dumbly, the editorial dismisses the fuss—but it doesn’t even seem to know what the fuss is about.

Nor does the editorial have a clue about the second part of the fuss. Was the Bush Admin gimmicking (“fixing”) “the facts and the intelligence” to build support for a war with Iraq? One part of the memo seems to suggest that. But the Post thinks that’s piffle too:

WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL: One observation in the memos is vague but intriguing: A British official is quoted as saying that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Yet it was argued even then, and has since become conventional wisdom, that Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration spokesmen exaggerated the threat from Iraq to justify the elimination of its noxious regime. And the memos provide no information that would alter the conclusions of multiple independent investigations on both sides of the Atlantic, which were that U.S. and British intelligence agencies genuinely believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that they were not led to that judgment by the Bush administration.

Pathetic. Yes, some were arguing, even then, that Bush was fixing the intel. And yes, it’s now conventional wisdom (among some, not all) that Bush and Cheney did that. But this memo goes well beyond that; if the memo’s “intriguing observation” says what it seems to, it means that the “exaggerations” were being churned out deliberately—not a matter of simple error, and not accidentally, in the heat of the moment. Indeed, if this “intriguing observation” says what it seems, it means the “fixing” of the intel was so deliberate that our good friends, the Brits, were discussing it openly at the highest level of government. This would be a massive new level of info. But again, the editors pretend that they don’t see what the fuss could be all about.

Yesterday, the Times’ Todd Purdum tortured the Downing Street companion memo, pulling out a single short phrase to suggest that Bush had made no decision on war. Today, the Post offers an editorial that is totally clueless—more likely, an intellectual fraud. Sadly, Purdum’s report and today’s editorial read more like work from the Washington Times. But as we’ve noted, there is one sure rule for the mainstream press corps—the press corps can never be wrong.

ONE MORE PATHETIC POINT: Let’s note one more pathetic point from the material quoted above. Did “U.S. and British intelligence agencies genuinely believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction?” The record suggests that they more-or-less did, although the Admin exaggerated their state of certainty. (Much more on that all next week.) But that is not what is really at stake when we say Bush “fixed” the intel. What kind of “fixing” is really at issue? In August 2002, the Bush Admin began making wild, scary claims about Saddam’s nuclear program; these claims went well beyond the state of the intel, and constitute the most important “fixing” of same (again, much more next week). When informed critics say that Bush and Cheney and Rice fixed the intel, they refer to specific claims like these—to Rice’s claim that those aluminum tubes could only be used for nuclear weapons, for example. In these claims, the Bush Admion went well beyond the state of the intel. And of course, their claims were just wrong. There’s a simple word for what Bush and Rice did; simply put, Rice was just lying.

Yes, that is what informed critics mean when they say Bush fixed the intel. Sadly, trhough, the people who run our Dem/liberal firmament are rarely this well-informed. Over and over, leading liberals go on TV and offer the silly “but Bush said there were WMD” argument. This is an automatic loser, as Howard Dean showed on Meet the Press last month in this laughable, hopeless exchange:

DEAN (5/22/05): Some of the things that the president said on our way into Iraq, they just weren't true, and I don't think that's right. So—
RUSSERT: Such as?

DEAN: Such as the weapons of mass destruction, which we have all known about, but the—

RUSSERT: Well, you said there were weapons of mass destruction!

DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were.

Hopeless! Dean himself had said there were WMD (“probably”), and he looked silly when Russert called him on it. Indeed, many major Dems, including Bill Clinton and Al Gore, had said there were WMD; most leading figures did seem to believe this. But neither Dean, nor anyone else, made those fake, phony claims about Saddam’s nukes—the claims which drive the debate from August 02 through the fall (much more on these claims next week). Sadly, though, today’s Dems and liberals are simply too stupid to organize even the simplest points. They’ve been slaughtered this way on TV for years—and that’s why the Post can offer this cheap escape now. You might want to recall this ineptitude when you get more brilliant messaging from your inspired liberal leaders.

[aikido7]

And for those who want to go further:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506150005

Yep, George Bush has manipulated and lied. He seems to have operated with no morality here...

[Frank Ernest]

I hope that you're joking. Otherwise, I've just lost all respect that I have for you.

Sheesh!
:darwinsm: Are you and :aikido:7 the same person?

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: Are you and :aikido:7 the same person?...as I have long advocated, you need to do some more reading...

MEANWHILE..

Cindy Sheehan ridiculed Bush for saying that it's "hard work" comforting the widow of a soldier who's been killed in Iraq.

"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son, your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big (brother) into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both," she said.

Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job.

"We're watching you very carefully and we're going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people," she said, quoting a letter she sent to the White House. "Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life ... ," she said, as the audience of 200 people cheered.

[Jukia]

Good for Ms. Sheehan. She is right and W is wrong.

[aikido7]

Good for Ms. Sheehan. She is right and W is wrong.You bet! Standing up for peace and the sacredness of life will always beat lying about having to go to war and not facing up to the human consequences.

Cindy Sheehan is a member of Gold Star Families for Peace.

http://www.gsfp.org/

[Frank Ernest]

...as I have long advocated, you need to do some more reading...
You need to understand what you're reading.

MEANWHILE..

Cindy Sheehan ridiculed Bush for saying that it's "hard work" comforting the widow of a soldier who's been killed in Iraq.

"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son, your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big (brother) into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both," she said.

Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job.

"We're watching you very carefully and we're going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people," she said, quoting a letter she sent to the White House. "Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life ... ," she said, as the audience of 200 people cheered.
Nice of her to dishonor and sully her son. But, hey, that's America. Right?
Just keep spreading all that "luv" you blabber about.

[simply one]

Nice of her to dishonor and sully her son. But, hey, that's America. Right?
Just keep spreading all that "luv" you blabber about.

So, uhhhh.... fighting against the man who caused the murder of her son by starting a war on false pretenses, who misled the country, pissed off the world, and got us stuck in a quagmire is DISHONORABLE?

Is it dishonorable to go after your son's murderer? How about the person who caused the murder through his actions (ie GW Bush)?

Love. Love for peace. Love your your fellow human. Not love for unneccessary killing. ENough love to want to work things out and not try to invade.

And, for this, the Hitler comparison WILL NOT WORK. With terrorism we are not dealing with a clearcut enemy nation/army. Terrorists are constantly growing and moving and scheming. Military can stop them in the short term, but in the long term, its just going to breed more and more terrorists.

It IS honorable to question what something may seem to be on the surface and to fight for justice against your son's murderer.

[Skeptic]

Why is it that I present clear evidence that (1) Bush & Co. said the invasion of Iraq was about WMD, (2) Bush & Co. lied about whether there was "no doubt" about Iraq's WMD, (3) Bush & Co. claimed either that they knew where the WMD was or that they found them, and (4) terrorism has dramatically increased worldwide since Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq, yet the Righties in this thread either choose to ignore this evidence or simply ask to "move on" to a different subject?

Could it be that these Righties know they are wrong and are simply too proud to admit it?

[simply one]

Could it be that these Righties know they are wrong and are simply too proud to admit it?

could it be that Skeptic is right?!?!

Although, that statement has been obvious for a while. The saddest part is, they're so proud that they ignore the facts and make up "facts" to support themselves.

But they'd never admit to any of this. At all.

[7cworldwide]

Why is it that I present clear evidence that (1) Bush & Co. said the invasion of Iraq was about WMD, (2) Bush & Co. lied about whether there was "no doubt" about Iraq's WMD, (3) Bush & Co. claimed either that they knew where the WMD was or that they found them, and (4) terrorism has dramatically increased worldwide since Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq, yet the Righties in this thread either choose to ignore this evidence or simply ask to "move on" to a different subject?

Could it be that these Righties know they are wrong and are simply too proud to admit it?

Saddam had WMD. He used them on his own people. All the US did was put teeth in the UN's so-called resolutions. France, Germany, Russia, etc... and the UN had too much to lose to allow an invasion of Iraq. The UN never would have followed through with those resolutions. They (and you) want to paint America as corrupt and evil when in fact all the organized corruption in the world begins and ends at the UN headquarters. You think it was all about oil and money for the US? Check yourself. That was everything to the UN. Oil-for-food was the greatest sham in modern history. They wanted the status quo in Iraq... no matter what it meant for the people.

The left in this country wants our military to fail so they can exploit the situation to their own political advantage. Well... it isn't working. The majority of the people know it isn't the "quagmire" you want to make it out to be. This is red-state America. Get used to it. It's gonna be that way for a while. :ha:

[simply one]

The left in this country wants our military to fail so they can exploit the situation to their own political advantage. Well... it isn't working. The majority of the people know it isn't the "quagmire" you want to make it out to be. This is red-state America. Get used to it. It's gonna be that way for a while. :ha:


November 2006 isn't as far away as it may seem, and George Bush is giving the country more and more reasons not to support republicans everyday.

[simply one]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/16cnd-poll.html?hp&ex=1118980800&en=132e1d0e719045a1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

the latest numbers are in, and Bush is slip sliding down in all ratings.

[7cworldwide]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/16cnd-poll.html?hp&ex=1118980800&en=132e1d0e719045a1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

the latest numbers are in, and Bush is slip sliding down in all ratings.

The great thing is the Dems still have nothing better to offer. :BRAVO:

Hopefully, your guys like Dick Durban will keep on spewing their filth to the public. :baby:

[simply one]

The great thing is the Dems still have nothing better to offer. :BRAVO:

Hopefully, your guys like Dick Durban will keep on spewing their filth to the public. :baby:

Did I say that voting for any particular politcal party would lead to spiritual salvation? Our government was designed to be secular, so it doesn't matter what Dick Durban preaches.

Bush is sliding in the polls and the 2006 elections are less then 1.5 years away... we shall see what happens. I mean, when a president has members of his own party thinking he's a radical, something is wrong.

[aikido7]

...yet the Righties in this thread either choose to ignore this evidence or simply ask to "move on" to a different subject?
Could it be that these Righties know they are wrong and are simply too proud to admit it?The ground has shifted underneath them, almost without their awareness and certainly without their assent. They cherish the picture they have built up--brick by brick--with the help of Karl Rove, talk radio and a flaccid media. Since many of them are literalists when it comes to the Bible ("fundamentalists"), they approach reality piecemeal and until they can clearly see the entire picture (which they never have heretofore been able to do), they can only defend the picture they have built on sand, even as it tumbles away.

Those of us who feared and saw the present events coming will still be mocked, but the sad thing is that this time could be spent by the right-wing figuring out direction and choices, instead of shoring up a smoking ruin of Bush's shabby little war.

[aikido7]

Hopefully, your guys like Dick Durban will keep on spewing their filth to the public. :baby:Hmmmm. Durban quoted from a report from an American FBI investigator! Could your pathetic spin be just more of--gasp!!!--Karl Rove's strategy of "blaming the messenger"?

After all, it used to be "unpatriotic Americans" who pointed truths like this out before...!

[simply one]

Hmmmm. Durban quoted from a report from an American FBI investigator! Could your pathetic spin be just more of--gasp!!!--Karl Rove's strategy of "blaming the messenger"?

After all, it used to be "unpatriotic Americans" who pointed truths like this out before...!

Aikido, "patriotism" is defined by self-proclaimed "patriots". So, by pointing out Karla Rove's strategy you're being very unpatriotic. tsk tsk aikido, pointing out the truth AGAIN... what IS TOL going to do with you...

[aikido7]

what IS TOL going to do with you...All of the Christians will rise above hypocrisy and forgive me?

[Frank Ernest]

So, uhhhh.... fighting against the man who caused the murder of her son by starting a war on false pretenses, who misled the country, pissed off the world, and got us stuck in a quagmire is DISHONORABLE?
Standard :Commie: lies.

Is it dishonorable to go after your son's murderer? How about the person who caused the murder through his actions (ie GW Bush)?
You seem to be quite confused. The son was killed by terrorists. Are you saying that GWB is leading the terrorists? How about people who are encouraging the terrorists to kill more Americans and Iraqis? That ok with you?

Love. Love for peace. Love your your fellow human. Not love for unneccessary killing. ENough love to want to work things out and not try to invade.
:darwinsm: Tell that to the terrorists. Let me know how you work it out.

And, for this, the Hitler comparison WILL NOT WORK. With terrorism we are not dealing with a clearcut enemy nation/army. Terrorists are constantly growing and moving and scheming. Military can stop them in the short term, but in the long term, its just going to breed more and more terrorists.
:darwinsm: That is probably the most juvenile assessment and argument I've seen.

It IS honorable to question what something may seem to be on the surface and to fight for justice against your son's murderer.
If one has a functioning brain, sure. That's not the case here.

[Frank Ernest]

All of the Christians will rise above hypocrisy and forgive me?
If you repent of your evil and immoral ways, yes. You will have to take a giant leap from your own hypocrisy to do that. Good luck!

[Frank Ernest]

could it be that Skeptic is right?!?!
No.

Although, that statement has been obvious for a while. The saddest part is, they're so proud that they ignore the facts and make up "facts" to support themselves.
:darwinsm:

But they'd never admit to any of this. At all.
Admit you are a liar and we'll move on.

[Delmar]

No.

:darwinsm:

Admit you are a liar and we'll move on.
You forgot scoundrel ! Oh never mind. I thought you were talking about A7

[Jukia]

Saddam had WMD. He used them on his own people. All the US did was put teeth in the UN's so-called resolutions. France, Germany, Russia, etc... and the UN had too much to lose to allow an invasion of Iraq. The UN never would have followed through with those resolutions. They (and you) want to paint America as corrupt and evil when in fact all the organized corruption in the world begins and ends at the UN headquarters. You think it was all about oil and money for the US? Check yourself. That was everything to the UN. Oil-for-food was the greatest sham in modern history. They wanted the status quo in Iraq... no matter what it meant for the people.

The left in this country wants our military to fail so they can exploit the situation to their own political advantage. Well... it isn't working. The majority of the people know it isn't the "quagmire" you want to make it out to be. This is red-state America. Get used to it. It's gonna be that way for a while. :ha:


So we enforced the UN resolutions? Isn't this the same UN that all the neocons hate? Seems to me to be a bit of hypocrisy. But I guess right wing hypocrisy is not really that, perhaps it is patriotism.

[simply one]

So we enforced the UN resolutions? Isn't this the same UN that all the neocons hate? Seems to me to be a bit of hypocrisy. But I guess right wing hypocrisy is not really that, perhaps it is patriotism.

When the U.N. happens to do something they like, neo-cons use it. When it works against them at all, they drop it like a hot potato.

What about the resolutions passed against the U.S's unilateral invasion?

[simply one]

Standard :Commie: lies.

soooo...according to you: 1) the world loves the USA
2) Bush did not lie about his reasons for going into Iraq (please actually read the dozens of quotes by him posted on this thread, and they should clear that up)
3) This man was not killed because we were in Iraq
4) It hasn't been over two years, and our troops are still there, insurgent attacks are not going on everyday, and top military analysts are saying that we'll be in Iraq for many years.

Sounds like someone needs to actually learn what is happening in the world. Try a news channel. Maybe and actual news website. Try www.cnn.com, www.abc.com, and even www.foxnews.com (run by your rightie buddies) has some actual world news (some, not much).

You seem to be quite confused. The son was killed by terrorists. Are you saying that GWB is leading the terrorists? How about people who are encouraging the terrorists to kill more Americans and Iraqis? That ok with you?

I am saying that George W. Bush has given and is giving the terrorists more and more reasons to hate America everyday, with his invasions and his mindless foreign policy. I am saying that if George W. bush had not misled us into attacking Iraq in the first place, her son would not have been killed.

And who are "people" encouraging the terrorists to kill more Americans? The people who say that we should actually try to improve our standing in the world? Or the people who want to kill all terrorists, who think just because you hate them, they shouldn't hate us back?

:darwinsm: Tell that to the terrorists. Let me know how you work it out.

I'm not saying that we should just go over to IRaq and start giving gift baskets to insurgents. I'm saying that maybe we should be more snesitive to world affairs and actually try to FIX the problem, versus fomenting more hatred towards America.

:darwinsm: That is probably the most juvenile assessment and argument I've seen.

So, theres a definite terrorist nation with a definite terrorist army that we are fighting.

If one has a functioning brain, sure. That's not the case here.

Obviously. You haven't proven to be a very avid user of your brain. Maybe if you actually read the facts which have been posted, maybe that will lead you to some actual understanding. But that would require you using a few more brain cells...

[On Fire]

simply one is a pinko commie.

[Gerald]

simply one is a pinko commie.Where "pinko commie" is defined as "one who disagrees with Bush Administration foreign policy"?

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

I find the Republicans(some) have just a wee bit more integrity going for them.

Do any politicians have any integrity? I thought one of the requirements for the job was to have an integrity deficiency

[Skeptic]

Notice that the Righties here rarely respond with any substance.

They rely primarily on personal attacks and demonizing the messenger, such as "Standard commie lies" or "simply one is a pinko commie."

They think that all they have to do to convince others that those who oppose Bush's invasion and occupation are wrong is to label them "commies" and call them "liars." This is their strategy. Once they've done this, they feel there job is finished and there is no need for substantive replies. No need to explain why we are "commies." No need to justify why they call us "liars." Name calling and demonizing is enough.

Why do they think name calling and demonization is sufficient? Because they believe that most fundamentalist Christians and fellow Righties respond more favorably to such simplistic tactics than to more thoughtful nuanced replies.

Could they be correct in their assessment of fundies and fellow Righties? You have to admit, it did not take much to convince a lot of Americans that Iraq posed a real and significant threat to America! Bush didn't even need to come up with clear hard evidence of such a threat! All he needed to do was SAY Iraq was a threat, and millions started shaking in their boots!! All he had to do was SAY that those who dissented were "unpatriotic" or "un-American."

Today's Righties were not the first ones to use such a strategy!

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."
--- Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).

"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."
--- Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).

"Great liars are also great magicians"
--- Adolf Hitler

"The great mass of people ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over."
--- Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 (1925).

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
--- Adolf Hitler

"Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us, and that God will help us against the Devil! Almighty Lord, bless our fight!"
--- Adolph Hitler to the SA in 1930

"What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator"
--- Adolf Hitler

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
---Adolf Hitler, 1933

" How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
--- Adolph Hitler

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

Well, of all the pinko-commie lesbian satanist pro-terrorist anti-American, anti-God lies I ever hear that has to take the cake

j/k I don't understand why the right wing finds it necessary to have to be told what to think, they put too much emphasis on listening to authority, on tradition and kowtowing to the powerful. It like they are a bunch of prostitutes or worse jail-house punks who administer "favors" to the shot-callers of the prison so they won't get their arses kicked.

Mr. Right-Wing is so enthralled with the Powerful and properly housetrained like the good ol' dog he is to obey his master, he will parrot anything his master tells him too, if his master insist that the sky is a nice shade of fuchia, Mr. Rightway will unquestionly agree, who is Mr. Rightwing to disagree with Authority?

He either conforms or his social standing is questioned, and without that social standing there is no female companionship for Mr Rightwing. You either conform or you don't get to procreate. Mr Rightwing is so in love with all the little goodies that the Powerful can give him , he will send off the fruit of his loins to be a human sacrifice to the System in one of its wars, and he will prostitute his daughters off to the Rich. All for the proverbial carrot on the stick hanging before is eyes.

The really got a "moral" system going, full of integrity.

[simply one]

Well, of all the pinko-commie lesbian satanist pro-terrorist anti-American, anti-God lies I ever hear that has to take the cake

j/k I don't understand why the right wing finds it necessary to have to be told what to think, they put too much emphasis on listening to authority, on tradition and kowtowing to the powerful. It like they are a bunch of prostitutes or worse jail-house punks who administer "favors" to the shot-callers of the prison so they won't get their arses kicked.

Mr. Right-Wing is so enthralled with the Powerful and properly housetrained like the good ol' dog he is to obey his master, he will parrot anything his master tells him too, if his master insist that the sky is a nice shade of fuchia, Mr. Rightway will unquestionly agree, who is Mr. Rightwing to disagree with Authority?

He either conforms or his social standing is questioned, and without that social standing there is no female companionship for Mr Rightwing. You either conform or you don't get to procreate. Mr Rightwing is so in love with all the little goodies that the Powerful can give him , he will send off the fruit of his loins to be a human sacrifice to the System in one of its wars, and he will prostitute his daughters off to the Rich. All for the proverbial carrot on the stick hanging before is eyes.

The really got a "moral" system going, full of integrity.

:thumb:

[Frank Ernest]

Alrighty! We're finally getting into the big belly-laughs! :thumb:

Now that the :Commie:s have all admitted to lying (and being complicit terrorists), let's move on.

Hey, Hasan! Keep spreading all that christian (other) luv :cloud9: and fergiveness around. (Does the "(other)" stand for muslim maybe?)

:darwinsm:

OH! How about that Dick Durbin! Didn't he really whiz all over himself in the Senate? WOW! Gitmo is just like a Konzentrationslager in WWII Germany, Soviet gulag, etc. Too many of those DC parties without a helmet, ya think? He threw in Pol Pot too! I think you :Commie:s ought to nominate him for Prez in '08. As a backup you might think on Pinky and the Brain.

Locally, the anti-war protestors were on TV yesterday. All 12 of them. Sure is a growing movement. (That's up from 11 last year at this time.) Had hand-lettered cardboard signs too. Cool! Stuff like "Universal Health Care NOW!" and "Homosexual Rights!" and "Bush Lied!" Just too tubular! :darwinsm:

[aikido7]

OH! How about that Dick Durbin! Didn't he really whiz all over himself in the Senate? WOW! Gitmo is just like a Konzentrationslager in WWII Germany, Soviet gulag, etcGitmo is like Auswich? No way. Watch your C-span tapes again. Seeing things in black-and-white is comforting, but unenlightening. And since enlightenment can bring forth a hard look at oneself, it is no surprise you strain to avoid it. Don't worry, though. Karl Rove is helping you to maintain an even strain.

And it's easier to point at Durbin, isn't it? Easier than looking where Durbin is pointing!
Hey, Hasan! Keep spreading all that christian (other) luv and fergiveness around. (Does the "(other)" stand for muslim maybe?)And I see you still avoid looking into a mirror at the plain nose on your face.

[Frank Ernest]

Gitmo is like Auswich? No way. Watch your C-span tapes again. Seeing things in black-and-white is comforting, but unenlightening. And since enlightenment can bring forth a hard look at oneself, it is no surprise you strain to avoid it. Don't worry, though. Karl Rove is helping you to maintain an even strain.
That it? That's your "telling" rebuke? :darwinsm:

And it's easier to point at Durbin, isn't it? Easier than looking where Durbin is pointing!
:darwinsm: BLOTD2! :second:

And I see you still avoid looking into a mirror at the plain nose on your face.
OH! Update! Dickie is crumbling. He has expressed a "conditional regret." :up:

[aikido7]

Conditional because it has finally gotten through to him how some honest and good people can still perfer to jump to the first conclusion that leaves them blameless and gives them a scapegoat.

You know it's all been the fault of a half-dozen rogue "bad apples," don't you? Or at least several dozen bad digital cameras--according to Rumsfeld.

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

Hey, Hasan! Keep spreading all that christian (other) luv :cloud9: and fergiveness around. (Does the "(other)" stand for muslim maybe?)


Are you familiar with the concept of reason? You cant be a muslim and a christian anymore than you can be an Amish Satanist or a Theistic Nihilist. I am a Christian, an Othrodox Christian, a real Christian unlike you protestants who slander and degrade the name of Christ throughout the world, my religion has a 2000 year history unlike yours. My Church was founded by Christ himself in Jerusalem unlike yours. You are a heretical apostate protestant, you're religion was born out of error and is filled with error, in fact it is the epitome of error and deception, which all goes with the fact that your religion wasn't founded by Jesus Christ but the Father of Lies and Error

Don't like me calling right-wingers the cabana-boy's of the rich and powerful - too bad, if you dont want that reputation quit getting on your knees and servicing your master.

[Crow]

Are you familiar with the concept of reason? You cant be a muslim and a christian anymore than you can be an Amish Satanist or a Theistic Nihilist. I am a Christian, an Othrodox Christian, a real Christian unlike you protestants who slander and degrade the name of Christ throughout the world, my religion has a 2000 year history unlike yours. My Church was founded by Christ himself in Jerusalem unlike yours. You are a heretical apostate protestant, you're religion was born out of error and is filled with error, in fact it is the epitome of error and deception, which all goes with the fact that your religion wasn't founded by Jesus Christ but the Father of Lies and Error

Don't like me calling right-wingers the cabana-boy's of the rich and powerful - too bad, if you dont want that reputation quit getting on your knees and servicing your master.

Oddly enough, neither Christ nor the disciples attatched any importance to any denomination--they saw only Christian or not.

A "real" Christian is just that. Christian. A person who is saved by grace through faith in Christ as Savior. It goes back to Christ, not who your clergy were between the time His ministry and the existance of me and thee.

If you think that being of any particular denomination saves you or makes you more saved than another then think again.

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

Oddly enough, neither Christ nor the disciples attatched any importance to any denomination--they saw only Christian or not.

A "real" Christian is just that. Christian. A person who is saved by grace through faith in Christ as Savior. It goes back to Christ, not who your clergy were between the time His ministry and the existance of me and thee.

If you think that being of any particular denomination saves you or makes you more saved than another then think again.

You don't understand, Orthodox Christianity is not a denomination of Christianity, it is Christianity. Denominationalism is the error of the protestant apostasy, Orthodox Christianity got over denominationalism way back, you might want to read about how - check out any history regarding the Nicene Creed - its a story with a cast of lively characters

A real Christian is what Jesus define his followers has - not your definition - Jesus defined his followers as obeying His words - doing what He told them to do - something that is lacking in the protestant apostasy.

[Crow]

You don't understand, Orthodox Christianity is not a denomination of Christianity, it is Christianity. Denominationalism is the error of the protestant apostasy, Orthodox Christianity got over denominationalism way back, you might want to read about how - check out any history regarding the Nicene Creed - its a story with a cast of lively characters

A real Christian is what Jesus define his followers has - not your definition - Jesus defined his followers as obeying His words - doing what He told them to do - something that is lacking in the protestant apostasy.

John said "Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Denominations are a man-made distinction, including those who consider themselves to be "first" and therefore exclude others. That's the real apostacy--thinking that a denomination can give grace.

I've checked out the Nicene Creed and it's history. The Nicene creed never saved a single soul, nor did the absence thereof. Only Christ saves, not a church. The Body of Christ cannot save anyone--they can only bring his message to the world.

[aikido7]

This is another example of the differering branches of the religion about Jesus than the religion (if you can call it that) OF Jesus. There was no "Christianity" until long after the crucifixion. There was only Jesus preaching the coming Kingdom of God and his followers--who described themselves as "the Way." Jerusalem church, Pauline Church, Protestant--they're all branches from the "Vine."

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

James said if ya believeth, ya doeth. If you are not doething you are not believething.

You have to conform with the facts, Orthodox Christianity is the first, we have 2000 years of history to prove it. The protestant movement was a rebellion against Roman Catholicism, the protestant apostasy stems from Roman Catholicism and I dont know about you but in my Bible it say no bad tree can bear good fruit - so what you protestants did was take the error of Roman Catholicism and compounded it a thousand times over - thats why you protestant apostates are so splintered

[Crow]

Did James state that any church assembly or body had a monopoly on Christ? Nope. What makes you even begin to think that all non-Catholics are Protestant anyway?

He who is not against us is for us. And you'll find a few idiot Protestants and others who figure the Catholics are all going to Hell. You remind me of them.

[Crow]

Oh, BTW, Hasan, per the Vatican II, YOU are an apostate.



I am a Christian, an Othrodox Christian, a real Christian unlike you protestants who slander and degrade the name of Christ throughout the world, my religion has a 2000 year history unlike yours. My Church was founded by Christ himself in Jerusalem unlike yours. You are a heretical apostate protestant, you're religion was born out of error and is filled with error, in fact it is the epitome of error and deception, which all goes with the fact that your religion wasn't founded by Jesus Christ but the Father of Lies and Error

The "Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio" (1964)

Section 3

"The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

"Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."

"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."

"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

[Frank Ernest]

Conditional because it has finally gotten through to him how some honest and good people can still perfer to jump to the first conclusion that leaves them blameless and gives them a scapegoat.
:darwinsm: I love it when you :Commie:s start treading water.

You know it's all been the fault of a half-dozen rogue "bad apples," don't you? Or at least several dozen bad digital cameras--according to Rumsfeld.
Yeah! that's it! "Bad Apples." :darwinsm: Soooooo, Bush fell in with "bad company?" :D

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

I dont care what Vatican 2 has to say. But it the authors where right in saying there is One Universal (Catholic) Church, its just not Roman. As for the Church granting salvation, I cant agree with that, the position of Orthodoxy is that the Church contains the fullness of doctrine and truth. If you want to know about doctrine and the truth you go to the Church, salvation is from God alone. Lets try to get back on topic.

[Frank Ernest]

Are you familiar with the concept of reason?
Yup. How's about you? :nono:

You cant be a muslim and a christian anymore than you can be an Amish Satanist or a Theistic Nihilist. I am a Christian, an Othrodox Christian, a real Christian unlike you protestants who slander and degrade the name of Christ throughout the world, my religion has a 2000 year history unlike yours. My Church was founded by Christ himself in Jerusalem unlike yours. You are a heretical apostate protestant, you're religion was born out of error and is filled with error, in fact it is the epitome of error and deception, which all goes with the fact that your religion wasn't founded by Jesus Christ but the Father of Lies and Error
By Golly! We have another physic who knows all! :darwinsm: This bit of pedantic puffery is kinda intriguing. Well, not really. :darwinsm:

Don't like me calling right-wingers the cabana-boy's of the rich and powerful - too bad, if you dont want that reputation quit getting on your knees and servicing your master.
Sorry, but Clinton and Monica are off-topic. Clinton was not a right-winger, by the way. :nananana:

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

Sorry, but Clinton and Monica are off-topic. Clinton was not a right-winger, by the way. :nananana:

Well from my point of view it doesnt matter whether you are on the left or right - you all end up being Caesar's cabana boy. All of you are eating Caesar's as Gwen Stephani put it B-A-N-A-N-A :banana:

[Lovejoy]

Are you familiar with the concept of reason? You cant be a muslim and a christian anymore than you can be an Amish Satanist or a Theistic Nihilist. I am a Christian, an Othrodox Christian, a real Christian unlike you protestants who slander and degrade the name of Christ throughout the world, my religion has a 2000 year history unlike yours. My Church was founded by Christ himself in Jerusalem unlike yours. You are a heretical apostate protestant, you're religion was born out of error and is filled with error, in fact it is the epitome of error and deception, which all goes with the fact that your religion wasn't founded by Jesus Christ but the Father of Lies and Error

Don't like me calling right-wingers the cabana-boy's of the rich and powerful - too bad, if you dont want that reputation quit getting on your knees and servicing your master.
I went ahead and gave you some rep points, though I do not really agree with you. Call them benefit of the doubt points. Go forth and earn them, though I would recommend you do it by building bridges with those that love Christ, rather than fostering animosity (as you are currently doing). Like it our not, your advocation of an "orthodox" church just sounds like one more attempt to get to Jesus by carrying the right ID, rather than the right heart and Spirit. God bless.

[aikido7]

James said if ya believeth, ya doeth. If you are not doething you are not believething.

You have to conform with the facts, Orthodox Christianity is the first, we have 2000 years of history to prove it. The protestant movement was a rebellion against Roman Catholicism, the protestant apostasy stems from Roman Catholicism and I dont know about you but in my Bible it say no bad tree can bear good fruit - so what you protestants did was take the error of Roman Catholicism and compounded it a thousand times over - thats why you protestant apostates are so splinteredThere have been a lot of errors, many splinters and much confusion. Welcome to the worldly incarnation, Hasan.

Matthew 7 is a mistranslation. Jesus spoke Aramaic--a Middle Eastern Semitic language. In all the Semitic languages, the word for "good" primarily means "ripe" and the word for "bad" means "unripe."

A ripe tree brings forth ripe fruit, an unripe tree brings forth unripe fruit.

Trees are not morally bad--just "unready." Rather than imposing an external standard of good or evil, Jesus is teaching a lession that has to do with time and place, health and disease.

Errors of interpretation along the way are normative. If Scripture is inerrant, that does not mean that our understanding of it is inerrant as well.

[Crow]

All of you are eating Caesar's as Gwen Stephani put it B-A-N-A-N-A :banana:

If y'all keep using such inapproriate references on this board, you will be eating Crow's B-A-N. :banned:

You've been warned. Please heed the warning.

[Frank Ernest]

Well from my point of view it doesnt matter whether you are on the left or right - you all end up being Caesar's cabana boy. All of you are eating Caesar's as Gwen Stephani put it B-A-N-A-N-A :banana:
Another wannabe savior.

[Lovejoy]

If y'all keep using such inapproriate references on this board, you will be eating Crow's B-A-N. :banned:

You've been warned. Please heed the warning.
I only just now got the referrence. Yuck.

[Skeptic]

John said "Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." :blabla:

I wouldn't want eternal life, even if such a fairy tale were true!!

We are all NOTHING but biological entities! There is no soul. And when you're dead, ... you're dead!

Get over it.


Shouldn't you folks be discussing this crap in another thread?

[simply one]

HELLO EVERYONE!

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT IMPEACHING BUSH. (ie War in Iraq, social security, foreign policy, etc...)

you can debate your Christianity in another forum

[Lovejoy]

A completely fair request.

[Crow]

:blabla:

I wouldn't want eternal life, even if such a fairy tale were true!!

We are all NOTHING but biological entities! There is no soul. And when you're dead, ... you're dead!

Get over it.

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. Hang out at an atheist board if you are offended.

Shouldn't you folks be discussing this crap in another thread?

You know, this is the first time I can ever remember you being right about anything. I'll split it off if it resumes.

[Frank Ernest]

:blabla:

I wouldn't want eternal life, even if such a fairy tale were true!!

We are all NOTHING but biological entities! There is no soul. And when you're dead, ... you're dead!

Get over it.
:yawn:


Shouldn't you folks be discussing this crap in another thread?
:darwinsm: :nananana:

[7cworldwide]

Hasan, please read this, my brother. I want to let the word speak for itself — Galatians 5:22-23 — "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

Back on topic...

Um... Bush is not going to be impeached so this thread really doesn't matter that much anyway... but if it makes you guys feel better, continue.

[simply one]

1. It always feels good to rant about how dreadfully wrong the current administration is. Especially because its true.

2. Let's see what happens in Novemeber 2006.

[simply one]

1717 US TROOPS AND AROUND 24000 IRAQI CIVILIANS DEAD, ALL FOR A LIE.

and still no apology...

what a wonderful country it is we live in....

[asilentskeptic]

1717 US TROOPS AND AROUND 24000 IRAQI CIVILIANS DEAD, ALL FOR A LIE.

and still no apology...

what a wonderful country it is we live in....

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

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

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

I don't disagree with everything you say... but I don't agree either. Keep up the alternate viewpoints though, lets us all know that this country really IS great!

[Skeptic]

Um... Bush is not going to be impeached so this thread really doesn't matter that much anyway... I don't think Bush will ever be impeached by a right-wing controlled Congress.

But this doesn't mean that he SHOULDN'T be impeached!

The title of this thread is NOT "Why Bush Will be Impeached."

[Frank Ernest]

Oops!

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44876

[Skeptic]

I may not agree with the war, or with the administration, but you won't hear me say that the country isn't good. Our country is good. It is our current war-mongering right-wing controlled government that is not.

The last time I checked, the US Congress Authorized the use of military force in Iraq. You know, the Senate and the House... The U.S. Congress was hoodwinked by the White House/Pentagon/CIA neocons.

It is my understanding that Congress authorized the use of military force only if necessary.

The problem is Bush's invasion was NOT NECESSARY!!

Bush, not Congress, gave the order to invade Iraq.

In October 2002, the UN weapons inspectors had not yet returned to Iraq. John Kerry said on the Senate floor that one reason he voted for the Authorization was to authorize the President to use the threat of force if necessary to get the inspectors back. One month after the vote, on November 18, 2002, UN weapons inspectors returned to Iraq for the first time in four years. Therefore, John Kerry's vote succeeded in this regard.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 is a flawed document because it talks about alleged WMD and al-Qaeda connections when there NEVER WAS any clear hard pre-war evidence of existing WMD or real al-Qaeda connections. Therefore, the document itself was based on hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations.

=====================
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Source (http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html)
=====================

When Bush booted the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq prior to his invasion in March 2003, Bush not only violated the very UN Resolution that he was supposed to enforce, but he also violated the above Congressional Authorization by doing what Saddam had done in the past, namely the refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991).

Furthermore, the above Authorization clearly states that it was giving the President the authority, not to rush into Iraq in March 2003, but to use of force if necessary. It was George Bush's determination, not the U.S. Congress, that America had to rush into Iraq in an invasion that unnecessarily killed many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Notice also that the above Authorization mentioned "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," implying some kind of connection between Iraq and 9/11, which the 9/11 Commission concluded did not exist.

... the people you and the rest of America voted for. The American people were hoodwinked.

It's not just the President you seem so eager to deface. If you don't like their decisions, then don't put them in again. What's funny is that America voted Bush in AGAIN! No, it isn't funny, it's quite sad that the right-wing in power successfully hoodwinked so many Americans into voting for Bush again.

Remember the PIPA survey showed that most Bush supporters believe statistics that did not exist?

See: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

Why is it that a majority of Bush supporters believed that the Duelfer Report claims that Iraq had WMD when Bush invaded? Is that what the Duelfer Report stated? No!

Why is it that a majority of Bush supporters believed that the 9/11 Commission reported that Iraq and provided substantial support to al-Qaeda? Is this what the 9/11 Commission stated? No!

Why is it that a majority of Bush supporters believed that the Bush Administration continued to say that Iraq had WMD and provided substantial support to al-Qaeda? Is this what Bush and Co. had been saying? Yes!

Why is it that a majority of Bush supporters believed that if Iraq had no WMD when Bush invaded, and Iraq had not provided support to al-Qaeda, the invasion would not have been justified? Was there hard evidence of WMD or meaningful al-Qaeda connection? No!

Why is it that a majority of Bush supporters believed that most people in the world supported Bush's invasion of Iraq? Did most people in the world really support the invasion? No!

Why is it that a majority of Bush supporters believed that most people in the world would like to see Bush elected, rather than Kerry, in November? Did most people in the world really want this? No!

Why is it that a majority of Bush supporters believed that Bush supports the International Criminal court? Does Bush really support this court? No!

Why is it that a majority of Bush supporters believed that Bush supports the Kyoto Agreement? Does Bush really support it? No!

This survey of Bush supporters clearly shows the effects of some serious hoodwinking!!

[Skeptic]

Oops!

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44876 I'm not aware of anyone in the Bush or Blair Administrations who have seriously questioned the authenticity of the contents of the Downing Street memos.

[Frank Ernest]

I'm not aware of anyone in the Bush or Blair Administrations who have seriously questioned the authenticity of the contents of the Downing Street memos.
:darwinsm: That you are unaware has never been seriously questioned either.

[On Fire]

Looks like a just war to me:

1. Just cause: Stopping the massacre of a large number of people or the systematic long-term violation of human rights of life liberty and community is a just cause.

2. Just authority: All of the necessary authorities that have the right to speak into such an action must approve it, and this approval must come without coercion or deceit.

3. Last Resort: All means of negotiation, conflict resolution and prevention have to have been exhausted.

4. Just intensions: The intended final outcome must be to secure a just peace.

5. Probability of Success: It is wrong to enter a war that will likely kill many people if there is no certainty that the probability of success is very high.

6. Proportionality of costs: “proportionality requires that the total good achieved by victory will outweigh the total evil and suffering the war will cause.” No one should prescribe a cure that is worse than the disease.

7. Clear announcement: There must be a clear announcement of a government’s intensions to make war.

8. The war must be fought by just means: The warring country will not purposefully inflict great casualties on innocent civilians and will not use means that aren’t proportional to the fighting.

[7cworldwide]

The U.S. Congress was hoodwinked by the White House/Pentagon/CIA neocons... The American people were hoodwinked.

Ya know... that would have to mean Pres. Bush is not as stupid as you guys think he is... if he can "hoodwink" Congress AND 60,000,000+ Americans.

If only the Dems could find enough sane members within their party to oppose the right wing... they might actually win some elections... I don't know though. I'm afraid the south and the heartland will continue to be "hoodwinked" by Supreme Chancellor Karl Rove and his Sith cronies.

:mock: