/avon eats yahoshua's popcorn

This is disengenous to the point of being downright dishonest. The IWR was passed Oct 10, 2002 - just one month before the mid-term elections. Among other things the IWR stated:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Strong statements. There are no "ifs" there, those are all assertions of facts - facts based on "evidence" that most democrats were not privy to, since very few (and very rarely) would have access to the high level cabinet meetings where the intelligence that these assertions of fact were based on was discussed. So the vast majority of democrats, and all to one degree or another, had to take the President and his republican cabinet appointees (such as Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld) at their word as they presented the substance of this to the press - substance which we now know has been, at a minimum, discredited. The republicans also controlled congress and would need only a couple swing votes in the senate for it to pass, so it was going to pass no matter what - the only question was how the President would proceed from there, and none of the Democrats could have know in Oct 2002, with Afghanistan still an ongoing war, that Bush would decide to invade Iraq in March/03. So their only fault was in taking him at his word and not realizing the depths of the man's folly and stupidity (which is exactly what the invasion of Iraq has amounted to, but again they did not know his exact intentions in Oct beyond what he was stating publicly - which was to get inspectors back in Iraq, which this resolution did accomplish, but then Bush had them pulled out before their work was completed to invade Iraq).

Then there is this, also from the IWR:

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.

That was never done. It was attempted, but when it became known that a second resolution was required that explicitly stated the use of force within it, in order for the UN to get involved, would not pass then the subject was dropped and Bush, along with the republican majority in the house and now the senate as well, settled instead for a "coalition of the willing". The democrats could not stop this, the only thing they could accomplish by speaking out at this stage (in early 2003 as the invasion became clearly more and more certain) was to look like the pink tutu wearing weaklings that the republicans had begun, and consistently done ever since (to all democrats now), to paint them as.

At worst the dems are guilty of trusting the prez and taking him at his word at a time when the country also trusted him, took him at his word, and were behind him with almost unprecedented levels of approval. Once the Genie was out of the bottle they could not put it back in, and anyone who voted for the IWR (as most dems did, though with no idea they would later be sold a completely different bill of goods than the one they thought they were buying) and later spoke would either be painted as a "flip flopper" (like Kerry) or a coward and a traitor. The dems had been cornered into a lose-lose, damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. It was a spectacular piece of political maneouvering, and I'd give most of the credit to Karl Rove for it, and it highlights where the real strength of the republicans: politics and political engineering; at that they excel, but at actual governing... well just look at what they've accomplished in the last 6 years: spiraling deficits and an obscene increase in the national debt, the worst terrorist attack on american soil in the country's history, two ongoing wars and 2,600+ dead service members with no end in sight, billions of dollars allocated to the Pentagon with so little oversight that they are simply "lost", the most inept and incompetent federal response to a natural disaster (Katrina, or Corrina as Laura calls it) in the agency's (FEMA) history, and on and on. And by the way, it wasn't the dems who appointed a horse commisioner to head FEMA, it was Bush. And its also Bush's legacy to preside over the largest and most expensive federal government in the nation's history (having never seen a spending bill from the republican congress he thought worthy of a veto... unless it was on stemcell research)... not sure how you "libertarians" reconcile that last part with your vote(s) for Bush. :dead:

It is fitting, however, that in the more recent months, as the ineptness and deceit have become obvious to all but the diehard Republican base, that the three words most associated with this President are "liar", "moron", and "idiot". Unfortunately it took 5 years for a majority of the American people to realize this, and now there's very little they can do to right the shipping sink (until a Democratic majority is elected in Nov, holds impeachment hearings, and Bush - like Nixon, who was only dishonest and not incompetent as well - finally resigns).

(discpovers that popcorn is gone rants about other people stealing popcorn, goes and makes more popcorn...)


MMhmm........so, Dems aren't responsible for the bandwagon they were on because they are now convinced that Iraq was a mistake that was doomed to fail.

Very interesting. Do you care to explain why it's the Repubs. fault for going into Iraq, when clearly the Dems joined in when it was politically popular to do so(therefore BOTH are responsible at this point whether Iraq fails or succeeds), but now that it isn't popular to be in Iraq the Dems. have done an about face and want nothing more than to turtle and hide here at home while we abandon Iraq to become a puppet-state of Iran?

What solutions do the Dems. have? All I've seen is complaints, and no real plans to be laid down other than turning tail and hauling a$$.

As for the Repubs.? Haven't seen much workable solutions here, and it's hard to come up with one when you're straight-jacketed by congress.

What I can clearly see from this, is that politicking has taken superior priority over the needs of the people and the security of the nation.

Changing leaders now will not accomplish anything other than changing the name of the president on this topic.


And as for your excuses:

http://homepage.mac.com/sbooneaz/ibl...ogress5795.gif

(Offers othr ppl popcorn.......)

Not really; it's a joke I make from time to time.

Not really, I just find him amusing sometimes, and from time to time actually agree with him.

Sorry, wrong again. I didn't vote at all in 2000, because I was unhappy with both major choices. I voted for Bush in 2004 because Kerry turned my stomach.

Congress raises and creates new taxes, not the president. I personally think of all taxes as evil, but neccessary, and don't trust anyone to create them who doesn't feel the same way.

Now you know me so well you're putting words in my mouth. Nice trick question, though: if I "admit it" I'm de facto agreeing with you, and if I deny it you are obviously proven right. I can't win on that one.:rotfl:

Well said. Most of your stated opinions still appear to be in 'lock-step' with the standard liberal lines, so I stick by my original opinion-it looks very much to me like the pot calling the kettle black.

As I said, I'm not a Republican at all. I do look at issues from every side and try to form a reasoned opinion. Pick an issue and try me sometime.

I'll give it a look. I find lock-step Republicans to be just as silly as you do; but I also find that in anyone whose mind is made up, closed, locked and sealed.

Where did the intelligence reports come from that those dems warranted the invasion with?

Watched Face the Nation today. Don't normally but the VP was the guest.
He was asked if we still would have invaded if we knew they didn't have WMD. He answered yes because he still had the ability. What horse crap!
Then I thought about it.
If he'd of said no, all hell would break loose about our invading.
If he said yes (which he did) the white house looks like they were looking for any reason to invade Iraq.
I'd have to say the VP was telling the truth. We were looking for any reason to invade. That makes my dislike for this administration even worse and helps confirm my thoughts that they were set to invade before Bush was even in office.

I don't see how you can seriously blame the democrats for a bill (IWR) that was drafted and passed by a republican congress (meaning it would have passed no matter how the dems voted) and signed by a republican president, who 5 months later saw fit to re-interpret it however he wanted to and act accordingly.

I'm not saying the dems are blameless. As I said, they made the tragic mistake of trusting a President and trusting his judgement when he's since shown he's worthy of neither. But the dems did not make the decision to invade Iraq in March/03, nor could they have; Bush did.

You are trying to play a game of smoke and mirrors here and I'm sure republicans running for re-election in Nov will be trying to do the same thing, if they haven't started already. Perhaps this shell game might even work on some of the electorate. But I doubt it'll work on many. Most people aren't that stupid. As Bush said:

There's an old saying in Texas, I think in Tenesse too, that says 'fool me once, shame on.... shame on you... but fool me twice can't get fooled again'.

The Congress and the President belong to the same party, much of the legislation drafted in Congress is done so at the President's request, and all of it is either signed or vetoed by the same man, and if the President vetoes it then unless it was passed by 2/3rds of the house and senate, the bill dies. The only bill the President has ever vetoed in 6 years of office was the one on stemcell research, which was nothing more than a crass bone to the fundie base whose votes his party will be desperate for in Nov if they are to retain control of both houses. So your arguement, while factually correct, doesn't tell the whole story and paints a picture that is very distorted. But that's one of the traits I pointed out in the dittoheads; the preference for living in a reality manufactured by the RNC and repeated everynight by Rush and his ilk (all category #1 republicans who actually do stand to gain directly from republican policies).

I'll agree with you though that Rush is witty and entertaining, but so are some used car salesmen, and I put him in the same category since the product he's selling is, for the vast majority of Americans, a lemon but he's well paid to sell it and if he does make the sale and convert the ever shrinking swing-vote into an (R) vote, or get out "Independents" and other Republicans in Nov to check the (R) then he'll make a very tidy commission on their policies (I'd imagine his share of Bush's tax cuts is well into the 6 figures).

I think you'd enjoy the book. What's amusing is how he admits he was, for most of his life, a lock step Republican, describes how he became that way, what aspects of the Republican ideology appealed to him and why, and how recently he had a bit of an epiphany when he began to notice, more and more, the disconnect between their ideology and their policy once in office. What did it for him, if I recall correctly, was that being a fiscal conservative he could not reconcile hypocracy in the growth of a government whose Congress, Senate, and President are all Republican against their ideological centerpiece which has always been small government; yet when the y are actually in power theirs is the largest and most spending happy government in American history.

Nation building was another turning point as well. He voted for Bush in 2000 and at that time, in his debates with Gore, Bush said that he was going to get the US out of the nation building business that the Democrats had gotten it into; however in his first four years in office he's already tried to build two of them from the ground up, and both of them have amounted to little more than very expensive failures (to the tune of over a trillion dollars before its all said and done, and more likely closer to $2 trillion). But you don't get to that to the latter part of the book and that's only a tiny part of a small book. Like I said, being an independent you should be able to enjoy it and if you don't you can always return it.

By the way, as an aside I can understand how people vote republican in spite of the fact that republican policies are largely detrimental to most of the people who vote for them. They have invested billions of dollars in various "think tanks" (The Heritage Foundation being one of the best financed and best known, but only one of many) who spend a big part of their budget on finding out what makes the average voter tick, what issues appeal to them and can be used to bring them over to their side, and how best to package and sell an ideology that is entirely counter to the interests of all but a tiny portion of the electorate. And its been money well spent. They have changed not only politics, but even the language of politcal discourse. They have no match in this realm. Yet when it comes to actually governing, they suck. And this administration (the Prez and VP of which could very well both face impeachment hearings if they lose control of Congress), and its republican congress (the former head of which is so corrupt he was indicted and had to step down) and republican senate (the head of which has also been under investigation by the SEC) will likely go down as the most corrupt and worst US government in American history headed by one of the worst presidents in the American history. But then that's just my opinion... only time will tell.

:rotfl:

Excuse my cigar smoke as I play flashlight tag with the good old boys' club.


I haven't been playing any games at all. I've been asking direct questions and posing direct arguments. Stop making excuses.

If you're still in denial of the fact that Dems supported (and VOTED) for the invasion of the Iraq war then it seems like you want reality to fit you.

It doesn't work that way.

Keep in mind that before this whole "Iraq is gonna fail" and "Bush lied to us" rhetoric came around, the Dems held the aforesaid positions........when it was politically popular to do so. But it is now politically un-popular to say that the improvements in Iraq are a GOOD thing (building schools, bringing basic rights to the people, producing electricity etc.).

None of this is what you hear on the news. But of course the Repubs. are all blamed for the deaths in Iraq and he apparent "lack" of progress seen. As if Bush had any real control over what was going on in Iraq.

But hey, when Iraq succeeds in standing on their own and can hold their own government, and hold free and fair elections. Guess who's gonna try and band-wagon on the credit? Democraps.

Ya gotta give credit where credit is due.

Oh my gosh! Could you imagine Gore as Pres? Ouch! Gore would be like - they just blew up the twin towers! What should we do about it! Should we beg for their forgiveness?

I guess Gore would be 100x better than Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, Bush was the best choice out of the choices for the job.

-S

It's pure ignorance to think that a Democrat would just scare away from an attack on our homeland. That's just plain and simple nonsense. Matter of fact, I recall a Democrat in office on Dec. 7, 1941, and who boldy and bravely stood up against the heinous attack at Pearl Harbor and immidately returned fire on them. I also remember there was a Democrat in office when both Hiroshima and Nagaski were A-bombed. I also remember that all of Europe was saved from Nazism and tyranny while a Democrat was the president. The past proves that the Democrats HAVE ballz. It's the cowardly Republicant's who haven't done diddly squat for the country except to get it further and further into unpayable debt.


Also, I'm sick of Republicans ALWAYS basing their political party believes on how they felt about William Jefferson Clinton. The only reason why you think that Dems don't have the ballz to stand up to terrorism is because Clinton was a draft dodger. Big Flippen WHUP! Your G.W. Bush ain't no American Hero either! Eww wow, he flew a plane and was late to several role calls and finally stopped showing up altogether. He military records really suck and show that he was an un-squared away military member. Just some lazy rich kid who's daddy got him out of trouble with his command. However, John Kerry WAS a war hero. His records are clearly documented by the Navy and he served with honor in an unpopular war.

And there is the bottom line....STFU already scandlous about the president of my country.If it was Bush or Kerry or Kermit the frog ya gotta stand behind your leaders.This country is still,STILL the best place to live in the world, so if ya don't like it tough titty.Deal with it.To sit there and come off like the ENTIRE world was hood winked by Bush is preposterous and insulting frankly to the intell community.People make up there own minds...as do you, so quit coming off like the I told you so guy like Skybird does....one I told you so guy is all we can take.

Where's that popcorn ? ....

I love ya Skybird :)

At least Bush released his records when Kerry didn't.

Btw, draft dodging is a FELONY. and bypassing the whole spiel of how he got there....Clinton is the first pardoned felon to have served as president of the United States.

You gotta stand behind the leaders eh? Maybe down there. Up here, where we've been at war with Afghanistan for as long as you have, and on your behalf where many fellow of my countrymen have shed blood and lost lives, we reserve the right to be critical of not only our country, but also our allies and our enemies. The fact that Chretien and Martin, both Liberal PMs, were at the reigns of government while we were at war in the ME didn't stop the criticism of either, nor did it prevent Martin from being voted out office and consequently resigning his party leadership position; nor should it, or will it, prevent us from criticisizing our current PM whenever he deserves it.

To my way of thinking if your half-witted President hadn't lost sight of the ball, Bin Laden - remember that guy? - and committed even half the forces to Afghanistan that he wasted chasing phantoms in Iraq, then Afghanistan might well be a very different place today and we might not need to still be there; but in the meantime, since our country is also financing, with blood and treasure, your campaign to remake the ME in America's (or Iran's, who can tell anymore) image then expect the criticism to keep coming. :up:

Hey, be glad!!! You guys limit your president to two terms in office, then he has to step down.

Here in Australia, we've had the same munchkin in office now since 1993, with no crediable opposition to speak of. You could drop little jonny in a septic tank and he'd come out smelling llike a new born bub!

Even members of his own party want to get rid of him, but can't. To add further salt to the wound, voting is compulsory!!!

Love to see how the US would cope with that!!

[quote=SubSerpent]So was Benedict Arnold.:D

BTW, did you watch any of the ABC show about the road to 9-11? Liberal foreign policy on parade.:up: Too bad bubba was occupied with other stuff.:rock:

..now where was the popcorn?

(offers nickimcbee popcorn......throws popcorn at Avon to see what happens)

/avon hands broom and dustpan to yahoshua and tells him to clean up the mess he made

(calls in dog to have a treat....dog dies of food poisoning......hands rest of popcorn to nikimcbee with evil grin on face)

Could you make us some more popcorn...lots of butter, please. And while you're in there, could you get me a deit coke too, thnx:lol: