Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's idiotic.> No, it's the truth. Those that ignore it are being idiotic. <How many Americans approve of Bush and what he has accomplished at this point?> Who knows? Those are questions polls don't ask. But if they did, all it would prove is how many people form their opinions by listening to incorrect liberals.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Every report has shown that there was no "cooking" of intelligence" Your joking? right? You really belive this? We KNOW they cooked the yellow cake myth. And served it up after knowing for months it was a lie. Thats called "propaganda". Lieing to the people about an imminent nuclear threat to scare them into supporting this war of choice. We don't have to wait for history to prove you wrong. We know your wrong right now.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Gosh, if only the True Believers had the courage of their convictions. Then they could actually enlist and let some of the soldiers that have been sent bac to Iraq again and again spend some time with their own families. But as always, that isn't what happens. They bleat from the stands about winning and losing, never taking to the field themselves. Typical.
Originally Posted By DAR We all know there were WMD's in Iraq, it's just that in the 80's Saddam used them against the Kurds.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It must be comforting for you to believe that. They intentionally misled us into war. There was no other reason for the talking points to be so carefully aligned, for them to rarely fail to mention Iraq and 9/11, or Iraq and bin Laden in the same paragraph.>> <Again, I believe the Bush administration said what they believed, based on the intelligence that they were given. I have lots of reasons to hold that belief, and your opinion or the opinion of others isn't going to change that, no matter how often it is repeated.> Oh, I'm sure you'll never change your mind. That's almost a given. The reasons you've given to hold that belief just don't hold water. Heck, even Bush loyalist McClellan has now said the public was intentionally misled. But you'll dismiss him too, no doubt. <<Even taken together that was not an adequate rationale.>> <A majority of the House and Senate said otherwise. > Not quite. Some of them believed they were authorizing a show of force but that the President would have to report back to Congress to start an actual war. But more important, the Congress was misled as well. For instance, the caveats to the NIE were placed in footnotes among a multi-hundred page document that they knew dang well few senators would actually read. The summary that most read had the caveats removed. (I don't absolve Congress here of their responsibility - they should have read the whole thing and they didn't.) On the other hand, a senator who DID read the whole thing, Bob Graham of Florida, realized the intell to support an invasion wasn't there, and urged his fellow senators to vote no. <a href="http://news.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBJRYMNM2F.html" target="_blank">http://news.tbo.com/news/metro...M2F.html</a> "To read the 90-page report, including the dissents, members of Congress had to go to a secure room in the Capitol with armed guards and sign in. They couldn't take notes, and they couldn't send representatives." Just think about that for a minute. They couldn't even TAKE NOTES on it, in case they saw something in there they wanted to research further. Amazing. "Graham also asked for an edited, nonclassified version of the report that could be made public. He said the CIA responded with a 25-page document that omitted the dissenting information and included material not in the original NIE - and that appeared to have been produced well before the NIE, he said. "It was an undiluted call for war," Graham said. He said he later learned that the document was the result of a request from the Bush administration months earlier for a summary of all evidence in favor of going to war. In an Oct. 8, 2002, caucus three days before the vote, Graham "forcefully urged" his Democratic Senate colleagues to read the full report and vote no on the war resolution. But a Washington Post account said only about a half-dozen senators signed into the secure room to view the report; only 23 senators voted no."
Originally Posted By DAR The thing that gets me is I know that intelligence we received was wrong, but so was every other intelligence agency in the world. You would figure there would be some contradicting figures.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your joking? right? You really belive this?> Of course I'm not joking. I'm speaking the truth. You can check the Robb-Silverman report, the 9-11 commission report, and the British Butler Report. They didn't "cook" the yellow cake "myth"; the evidence is Saddam's Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger - even Joe Wilson's evidence supported this.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Gosh, if only the True Believers had the courage of their convictions. Then they could actually enlist and let some of the soldiers that have been sent bac to Iraq again and again spend some time with their own families. But as always, that isn't what happens. They bleat from the stands about winning and losing, never taking to the field themselves. Typical.> I'm certain that many of those fighting and dying over there are true believers. I'm also certain that the constant distortion of the reasons why we went there, and the continual exaggeration of problems and discounting of successes, doesn't make their job any easier. If the true Deniers really felt bad about those serving in Iraq, they could actually enlist and let some of the soldiers that have been sent back to Iraq again and again spend some time with their own families. And if they had the courage of their convictions, they'd be in Iraq protesting the violence of the terrorists, instead of standing safely on street corners in the US, complaining about our military's attempt to make them safer.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The usual neocon fantasy. Why don't you go visit your recruiter and sign up for the cause you so believe in? Too busy kicking back with a brewski, relaxing? Yeah, support our troops, huh. Belch.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why don't you go visit your recruiter and sign up for the cause you so believe in?> I did. I'm too old. What's your excuse?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm older than you. So there. Now get off my lawn.<< I'm not too old. And my excuse is I'm not going to die in Iraq while George the Incompetent got on the job training. He used and wasted our troops. That should infuriate Americans. Instead, some choose to defend the indefensible because the (R) next to someone's name is more important to them than their behavior.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Instead, some choose to defend the indefensible because the (R) next to someone's name is more important to them than their behavior.> It sounds a lot like some people will be chosing the next President because he has a (D) next to his name, whether he makes any sense or has any good ideas or not.
Originally Posted By X-san ***It sounds a lot like some people will be chosing the next President because he has a (D) next to his name*** That would be the correct course of action for any responsible citizen, yes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I disagree. I think you should look at the men and their policies, and pick the person who will do the best job. Senator Obama's policies will be disasterous.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Senator Obama's policies will be disasterous.<< You hope. What is likely to happen if Obama wins is that we get another chance to improve our standing internationally, a fresh chance to address problems here at home, a fresh chance to end this war. Yeah, sounds really disasterous. You can't (or won't) even see the damage THIS administration has done, so you're not exactly the go-to guy on what constitutes "disasterous."
Originally Posted By X-san ***Senator Obama's policies will be disasterous.*** Yeah, and I said the same about your pick seven years ago. How'd that work out? It's already a disaster, Doug. How can you not get that? And YOU supported the disaster every step of the way. Any more of your idiot candidates and their status quo, right wing stupidity and America might just be damaged beyond repair (it's already quite the fixer upper as it is!). Why not get over yourself for once and realize that what you have been staunchly supporting for 7 years has not only been stupid on the part of that failure of a leader called George Dubya, but has actually been outright poisonous and destructive for the United States of America? Sometimes stubborn is a bad thing.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer >>Senator Obama's policies will be disasterous.<< "You hope." Yes, that's really it, isn't it? You nailed it. If Obama is elected, DouglasDubh would, I think, be actively hoping for disaster. I voted for Bush in 2000. I wanted him to be a good president. I thought based on his pretty moderate record in Texas (and I'm a moderate), he might be. I certainly wanted him to be. Not only because I voted for him, but because I'm an American. I WANT our presidents to do well. I didn't vote for Clinton in '92, but I wanted him to do well anyway. I wanted to Bush to do well, and after 9/11 he had a real chance for great things, what with the world completely behind us, and 90% approval ratings at home. But he squandered all of that. Still, I defended the guy for a couple of years to friends. "Give him a chance, he's still our president," I said. But finally he was just such a disaster that I couldn't defend him any more and came to see him for the disaster he was. But when he was first elected, I wanted him to be good. If Obama is elected, I don't think DouglasDubh would want that. He's so ideological, that being "right" about him would be more important than wanting the country to do well. I saw that with some left-wing friends early in Bush's term also. Highly ideological left-wingers do this too. I think DD would actually be HOPING for bad things for the country, just to be "right." And he'd be on Obama's case for the slightest transgression, real or trivial, from day one. If Obama is elected, we'll see if I'm right about this. Me, I'm still open to McCain and Obama both, and I hope we do get some substance, and it doesn't just become the media morphing from focusing on the Democratic horserace to focusing on the general election horserace, to the exclusion of examining the actual positions of the two.
