Originally Posted By Dabob2 <When Iraq is free and prosperous, and no longer a haven for terrorists. It shouldn't be long now. It shouldn't be long now. It shouldn't be long now.> Wishful thinking is not an argument. (Pleads guilty to posting the one sentence 3 times. But it isn't like you haven't said it before.)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Wishful thinking is not an argument.> The facts are that we are making progress in Iraq, in every way.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We're closing the noose around them, and cutting their supply lines, and arab opinion is turning against them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>arab opinion is turning against them<< I truly hope that blossoms. I was encouraged to see the massive demonstrations in Jordan over the weekend against al-Zarqawi. I'd love it if at long last terrorists stop being glorified in the middle east, and maybe the massacre at the hotel wedding represents a tipping point at last.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <We're closing the noose around them, and cutting their supply lines, and arab opinion is turning against them.> I wish it were true - or at least true enough to stop the insurgency in any meaningful way. But you know what they say about wishful thinking... (I believe I read that October was the 5th deadliest month since the insurgency began).
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I was encouraged to see the massive demonstrations in Jordan over the weekend against al-Zarqawi. << Yes, but unfortunately the terrorists that attacked jordan came from iraq. Bush's attempt to "drain the swamp" in iraq has actually increased the terrorist presence from 'nil' to 'overflowing' into neighboring nations. From a column today by cynthia tucker about cheney's comments - >> On Wednesday, Cheney lashed out at a black-tie dinner for a conservative research group. ". . . In Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of the administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city," he said. You've got to give the Bush-Cheney White House credit for sheer gall. Cheney, after all, was among the worst offenders in distorting intelligence or disregarding it completely if it didn't support his views. Among other public statements he made in the run-up to the war were these: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." "It's pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 attack, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. In fact, the CIA had already concluded it was quite unlikely such a meeting took place. But that didn't stop Cheney, who continued to push the utterly discredited notion of a link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. << <a href="http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/" target="_blank">http://www.ajc.com/opinion/con tent/opinion/tucker/</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux Cheney's comments today (Monday 11/21) - >> "The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight. But any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false," Cheney said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute. << Do you suppose cheney would be willing to take an oath and then testify to the same statement? Undoubtedly not, because then he'd have to answer a whole series of questions that would likely incriminate him. Cheney himself has been deeply involved in the "pre-war information that was distorted, hyped, and prefabricated", otherwise known as "lies". And yet he thinks it's unreasonable for the public to question what the administration told us and how they led us into this war. I can point to twenty different things he personally has said that have been untrue. We have every reason to examine his statements, and those of the administration, especially given the track record. Even now, they're continually saying that congress had exactly the same intelligence that the president had. Bald faced lie and documented as such. But that doesn't stop the "supporters" from dutifully parroting this same comment. This administration has been caught up in so much lying, prevaricating, and misleading that they have no credibility left with most of the american public. It's time to put them on the stand, swear them in, and get their testimony on record. Without testimony under oath, they can continue to lie their weaselly black hearts out with near impunity. Republicans wouldn't hear of it. They'd rather their own leadership lead us into war on a raft of lies than to actually take responsibility and find out the facts. They'd rather not know. The deaths of american soldiers are less important to these "support the troops" types than their own political agenda.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Cheney himself has been deeply involved in the "pre-war information that was distorted, hyped, and prefabricated", otherwise known as "lies". >> Ok.... Prove it. Lets see the distorted info that the dems have now decided is their excuse to cut and run and declare we lose again! Prove it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I wish it were true - or at least true enough to stop the insurgency in any meaningful way.> Looks true to me. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/smitht/smith200511210820.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ smitht/smith200511210820.asp</a>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Bush's attempt to "drain the swamp" in iraq has actually increased the terrorist presence from 'nil' to 'overflowing' into neighboring nations.> This is an unsupportable statement. <I can point to twenty different things he personally has said that have been untrue.> I doubt this very much, unless you have a strange definition of "untrue".
Originally Posted By Bruiser "This is an unsupportable statement." Al-Zarqawi. Supported, and then some.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It's cheney who's making the bold statement that the charges of misusing and twisting the intelligence are "utterly false". I'd say it's up to the administration to prove their claims. They can't. Beau - they are the ones who started this war, and they used an entire laundry list of items that have been "proven" to be unfounded. Then they come back with lame rejoinders like "well clinton thought so too". Why are they relying on 1998 intelligence to start a war in 2003? Clinton didn't do that. The burden of proof falls to them - not us.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's cheney who's making the bold statement that the charges of misusing and twisting the intelligence are "utterly false".> Please point out one document that the administration had that undermined the argument for war that was not shared with the congress. <they are the ones who started this war, and they used an entire laundry list of items that have been "proven" to be unfounded.> Read the resolution that authorized the war. There were over twenty reasons given. Maybe one has been disproven.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The burden of proof falls to them - not us.>> So you can go around claiming that Bush lied, he had information he hid from the democrats that tricked them into voting for the war and yet, you have no way to prove any of this?? My question is... why do you believe stuff that you can't prove?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << There were over twenty reasons given. Maybe one has been disproven. >> This is a point that I understand is going to be hammered home by the white House in the upcoming weeks. It will be fun to watch the dems act like they had 19 points hidden from them and that the idiot GW Bush fooled all of them.
Originally Posted By Bruiser "Hardly." False bravado is the only kind of bravado the Republicans have, isn't it? Not only does Al-Zarqawi refute your statement, but you called all the insurgents terrorists the other day rather than call them an army. Can't have it both ways, big guy.
