Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, you voted for Bush. Why are you always trying to make your vote look like a mistake these days? This is what I mean by you being very confused about, well, pretty much everything.>> No Beau, you're the one who's confused. You're the one who stubbornly sticks with a position even when facts show you shouldn't. Yes I voted for him. And given the choice we were presented with, I'd MAYBE even vote for Bush again. But that doesn't mean I like what his Administration has done. It's becoming very clear that Bush believed the intelligence he wanted to believe, even when there was strong intelligence pointing the other way. See, that's the difference between you and me. Just because I vote for a guy doesn't mean I blindly follow everything he says and does.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's becoming very clear that Bush believed the intelligence he wanted to believe, even when there was strong intelligence pointing the other way.> There's nothing in this report that indicates that.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<There's nothing in this report that indicates that.>> Actually, the report makes it seem like the Administration flat out made stuff up. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by saying they cherry-picked which intelligence they wanted to believe.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy RT, just admit it. You don't know what to believe. The democrats throw garbage like this out all the time trying to confuse people, shake people, depress people. It's what they do because they have no alternitive plans of their own so they do what losers do. They slam the people who are in power. They slam the people who are actually serious about keeping you and your family alive.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Actually, the report makes it seem like the Administration flat out made stuff up.> Maybe some of the reports about the report do that, but the actual report doesn't.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The democrats throw garbage like this out all the time trying to confuse people << Yeah - garbage like the senate intelligence comittee's official report. And it's not that confusing at all. Nothing that they said about iraq and al qaeda was true. Ever. They said it because they wanted to invade iraq and they were willing to cynically use the 3000 people who were killed in 9/11 to try and justify this wholly and completely unrelated war. They didn't stop there - they continued for the next five years to try and tie iraq to 9/11, because without it all they've got is douglas's hallowed UN resolutions, and bush hates the UN. The question isn't 'what did the president know and when did he know it' because it was never the president's to go to war in iraq. He's been acting on the bidding of a secret cabal. Sounds paranoid, huh? It's the truth. He really is a stooge.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Yeah - garbage like the senate intelligence comittee's official report. And it's not that confusing at all.>> Actually that statement isn't correct. The report itself does not make the claim that there was no relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That statement is made in a DEMOCRAT ADDENDUM to the report in the Conclusions section. Got it? <<They didn't stop there - they continued for the next five years to try and tie iraq to 9/11, because without it all they've got is douglas's hallowed UN resolutions, and bush hates the UN. >> Gadzuux, show us a quote from Bush that said Saddam was tied into the 9-11 attacks. Otherwise your just another badking moonbat liberal with no proof of anything.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<What a load of hooey.>> I should just keep my answers short and sweet. LOL
Originally Posted By jonvn "The "Republican-controlled Senate committee" includes 7 democrats and 8 republicans, 2 of whom, Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snow, are anti-war." So, it's not Republicans specifically you worship, it's George Bush in particular. That right? "That statement is made in a DEMOCRAT ADDENDUM to the report in the Conclusions section. " If the panel, which is mostly made up of Republicans and the leader of the panel, a Republican, did not want it in there, it wouldn't be in there.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, it's not Republicans specifically you worship, it's George Bush in particular. That right?> I don't worship any man. I respect those who are a clear thinking and honest, so that leaves out most Democrats, and some liberal Republicans. <If the panel, which is mostly made up of Republicans and the leader of the panel, a Republican, did not want it in there, it wouldn't be in there.> I don't believe that's true.
Originally Posted By jonvn It seems you do. If anyone is critical of Bush, you seem to think it is wrong. In your own words, those who disagree with him are not clear think or honest. That sounds like you feel Bush is infallible, and can do no wrong, while any criticism of him is improper. What is interesting is that even a Republican led committee making comments is now being shunted aside because it shows that the Bush admin did not do the right thing. Under what circumstances would criticism of Bush be accepted by you? If even a Republican led report isn't good enough, it doesn't seem that anything would be. And that, I would say, is worship.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If anyone is critical of Bush, you seem to think it is wrong.> Not at all. I think it's wrong when their criticism includes items that aren't supported by fact, but I don't think it's wrong to criticize the President. To say he made some mistakes in planning our actions in Iraq is perfectedly justified; to say he lied to persuade the US to do invade Iraq is not.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper This is one more episode of a tired argument that will never go away. Bush-Basher: HA! See? Bush LIED! Bush Fan: Your proof? What WAS his lie? Bush-Basher: He said Iraq did 9-11!! Bush Fan: Um, when? Bush-Basher: Well, maybe not directly, but he definitely MISLED! Yes! He DECEIVED us! And so it goes, over and over. Some points, if you please, that are so oddly forgotten (or ignored): * There was a war in the early 1990s. The Gulf War. Heard of it, friends? A little thing where Saddam Hussein entered a soverign nation (Kuwait), killed and terrorized its people, and basically got away with it. It was akin to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Why has it been years since I've heard Kuwait mentioned in the media? It's like it never happened. But it DID happen. * Saddam Hussein has tortured, maimed, raped, and gassed (using the "nonexistent" weapons of mass destruction) his own people, and those of other nations. And he's NOT a terrorist? C'mon .... * While Saddam's complicity in the events of 9/11 is in doubt, his praise of the attack (alone among world leaders) is on the record. The lesson of 9/11 isn't that Saddam did it, but rather that we have to take any threat, from any rogue band of terrorists to any dictatorial state, absolutely seriously. The cost of complacency is simply unimaginable, and we had a small taste of it in 2001 and 2002. Bush did not lie, nor did he say anything that hadn't already been said by Blair, Clinton, Albright, Annan, and a host of others on the world stage who were so "concerned" about Saddam Hussein but reluctant to face the bully. Only Bush (and Blair) had the commitment to do something about him. Whatever we knew, or didn't know, or got wrong, Saddam's refusal to cooperate resolutions was enough to cause great concern and uncertainty. Bush was not willing to give a man like Saddam the benefit of the doubt and hope he was being a good boy. He wasn't willing to make that gamble on the lives of millions of innocents. We should count our blessings (or lucky stars, for our athiest friends) that we had at least two world leaders who knew to err on the side of innocents, and not on the side of terrorist dictators. I assert that even if tremendous stockpiles of WMD had been found, even if Saddam had ordered the 9/11 attacks himself, Bush would STILL be criticized for going to war. In the days immediately after 9/11, Bush made clear that 1. ALL terrorist threats would be addressed, and he made the definition of "terrorist" very broad 2. Iraq was a threat. Americans supported him then. What changed? Did Saddam suddenly become nice? Harmless? No. Bush's critics wanted to win an election and put Kerry in the White House. If Bush had left Saddam alone, and Saddam had then gone on to kill even a small handful of Americans, or launch some terror attack against citizens of any nation (with or without WMD), WHO would catch the blame? We all know the Dems (and the world) would rip into Bush more severely than we're seeing now. He would be totally trashed for INACTION, and he'd catch the heat from Republicans too. Fortunately, we have not seen a terror attack on the scale of 9/11 since that awful date, and there has been nothing on our own soil. No one deserves more credit for that than George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and those in the military and security fields who serve with them. You can like Bush's politics and personality or not, but the true liars are those who say Saddam was not a threat and Bush was the terrorist. Conservative thinking and Republican politics does not make a person evil. Wanton harming and killing innocent people does. Why don't left wingers (aside from Tony Blair, Ed Koch and Joseph Lieberman) get that???? The most disturbing part of all of this is the rancor and acrimony within our own country. We can't even agree on a simple definition of good and evil. We have an element of lying rogues the likes of Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc. who see no evil in men like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro (however bloody), and no good in a man like George Bush (however flawed). When our notions of good and evil are so horribly skewed and warped, when we place politics above our solidarity against wholesale slaughter and tyranny, we are losing our soul as a nation. I couldn't stand Bill Clinton. The man is nearly morally vacant. I abhor what he has done to women (and especially how his "wife" has stood by and excused and enabled it). Any "good deed" he does is for show. But you will NEVER hear me say that taking Milosovich from power was a bad thing. Given the choice between Milosovich and Clinton, I (and I daresay most conservatives) would, WITHOUT RESERVATION, stand behind Clinton ... any day. As evil as Clinton was towards women, you will never hear me calling him a terrorist or a war criminal. THAT would be a lie. SADDAM LIED, friends. And Bush was left to deal with his lies in the best way he knew how. It's been costly, but he's doing the job he was sent to do ... and with far more success than failure. One more time: SADDAM HUSSEIN was (and is) the liar!!!! (Duh!) Those who are fixated on "proving" Bush a liar, waving-off the lies of bloodthirsty tyrants, need to seriously ask themselves why they are so tolerant of evil, and so hostile to good. President Bush is a good man. You don't have to vote for Bush, or like him. But he is NOT the devil, and Saddam is no innocent. If we cannot at least agree on that (and it seems we can't), then civilization has a cancer far more insidious and threatening than terrorism to worry about.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<What is interesting is that even a Republican led committee making comments is now being shunted aside because it shows that the Bush admin did not do the right thing.>> Hey jon, pull your head out. The committee had Hagel and Olympia Snow, both anti war liberal republicans on it. That swung the balance to the idiots. People like you rarely read beyond a report's conclusion. ( From the Democrats ) Thus, the Democrats had an incentive to misstate what the Committee actually found. Always the sucker for the spin you are. You are such the intellectual, well at least you tell us you are in your own special way. From Powerline- "The Senate Committee report fails even to mention some of the best-known and best-documented evidence of contact and coordination between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. That being the case, it is hard to see how the report can have any value except as propaganda."
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hyper, great post. If you listen to the pro- Saddam left on here, he was a sorta mean guy who was just minding his business and was not a threat to anyone except a few people in his own country. It might be time to bust out the 50 or so quotes from leading democrats who insisted Saddam had to be removed and he was a threat. These people now want to bail out because it's not politically popular anymore. Then they want people to trust them with national security. Anyone who votes for a democrat during these times is a flat out fool.
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 <When will conservatives pull their heads out of their asses and grasp the fact that the primary objection to this was is that it was launched primarily on the premise that Saddam was an imminent threat to the USA, which he was clearly not.> The primary premise that was used to launch our action was not that Saddam was an imminent threat to the USA. It was that he was stockpiling WMD's and supporting terrorism, in defiance of the UN resolutions, and that these actions of his posed a clear threat to the US.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Show me where anyone has said Saddam is innocent or a nice guy? >> Show me a single liberal protester who ever had a anti- Saddam sign? Game over. Get me a new player.
Originally Posted By Shooba In any case, it's the tired old argument of anyone criticising Bush being tolerant of evil. "Those who are fixated on "proving" Bush a liar, waving-off the lies of bloodthirsty tyrants, need to seriously ask themselves why they are so tolerant of evil, and so hostile to good." I mean really, anyone who accuses Bush of lying is a fan of evil dictators? It's the argument of the simple minded.
