I was going to repond to you in entirety, but I'm sick of this thread.

Bush did dismantle the walls built by the Clinton administration in intelligence information sharing. And the Democrats screamed bloody murder over it when it was done.

And your basic premise of war fighting may be correct in some ways, but you would have lost WW2 applying them on a global warfighting scale. Tell Roosevelt he shouldn't have fought on multiple fronts or he shouldn't split his forces between Atlantic or Pacific. And while I believe we should use overwhelming force, it would help if the Democrats would shut up when we do it, and not become Al Qaeda's domestic propaganda machine. Your general basics of war do not apply with the type of enemy we now confront. And the leftists in the USA make it very difficult to use any force at all.

If you support the war on terror and Afghanistan, and you support the use of overwhelming force, why are you so opposed to President Bush? Just because you don't support our actions in Iraq? OK, you are against the Iraq war, fine. But you have not read the resolution. And it shows with your statement regarding Saddam being a bad guy, and thinking that's why we went there.

Oh yeah, and one more thing, Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-invasion. What was proven not to be true was a link of Saddam to 9/11 nor was there an absolute establishment of a working relationship. But yes, in Salman Pak, there was terrorist manuals, evidence of a hijacking training program, and Saddam was actively financing terrorists in the West Bank. And Saddam had been actively using his military forces against Kurdish civilians. That sir, can be called a terrorist supporting state by any measure.

By your definition we should be using the military to go after Pet and Eco Activist's in this country. By your definition we should be in;

• Cuba
• Iran
• Iraq
• North Korea
• Sudan
• Syria

Not to mention we should also be in Israel for the Palistinions and in Lebanon for Hezbolla(?). Maybe we should lump Turkey in there to if you want because they are fighting the Kurds.
In WWII we fought on multiple fronts because we had to. We didn't start it. Hitler opened up two fronts against the advice of his generals and look what happened. We did however start Iraq. You weaken yourself as is proven today in Afganistan and Iraq. If we had the forces and money in Afganistan that we have used in Iraq their would be no Taliban, and probably no Al Qaeda and democracy would safely grow and that region could be an anchor. Instead we are piece mealing ourselves out and accomplishing nothing but holding on.
I suggest you reread the resolution and gleam fact from what turned out to be fiction and I'll say it again, what was going on in Iraq was bad or evil, whatever word you want to use but did not warrant invasion. We can't go around the world invading for every wrong.
I thought Al Qaeda had Sadamm as a target. Funny they would be chummy don't you think.
But yes, this thread is getting tiresome. You'll crow the republican line right or wrong.
I read in todays paper that republicans are starting to change and call for an exit strategy. Gee, nothing like an election to change politicians reasoning. It's disgusting.

Well, you're wrong on both counts:
1) No, there are many kinds of everything, and
2) No, you don't think.

I'm not a Republican, but I do tend to be more conservative than liberal. That said, I've been accused of being both due to my opinions on various subjects. I know many extremely intelligent people who listen to Rush Limbaugh (he is quite witty, after all); not so many of them like Hannity or Coulter.

You, on the other hand, usually come across as just as opinionated and lock-stepped as the people you like to point fingers at. I don't see you as any more open-minded or thoughtful in your arguments than some of the people on the "other side of the fence". You seem to already know that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong, misguided, lying or just plain stupid. Of course that's true of a lot of conservatives as well.

I myself try to see all sides of situations and leave myself open to reasonable debate.

Oh sh*t, Al Qaeda was in Iraq really?

The ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about as strong as balsa wood. No doubt you must have heard about the declassified report released on Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

From the 151 page report:

and

and finally this

Go read the report for more detail.

Another article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-379418c.html

Where is that crackpot Laurie Myrolie when you need her with her wacky theories that Saddam helped plan and fund 9/11 and other trippy LSD style type theories that she paraded in the media to strengthen the case for invading Iraq during the lead up.

Invading Iraq was the wrong war. Now we face the possibility of Iraq becomming another Afghanistan style haven/training ground for global terrorists (Al Qaeda), meanwhile Iran feels like it is on a role, and back in the States despite the massive policy failures and cockups following the conventional war victory in Iraq it is all going t*its up and not one sorry ass politician or beauracrat has been sacked. Accountability.....what's that?

Bradclark1 has it spot on.

You da man!:sunny:

Yeah, but now we are in prime position to invade Iran from the east and west. Poof! No more Iranian nuclear program.

Exactly...why as someone above said..must one "Wait" until one is attacked and innocent die?...Why?....I only speak hypothetical but to me it is utter non-sense to Wait....it is also a waste of lives to me having ground soldiers in there...some say you always need this..well maybe I think..to patrol the outskirts of the Nuclear blast area...I'm serious the crime should be in sending soldiers in...first dimplomacy...then break out the bigger stuff and level some cites...why is it wrong to do it in one fell swoop losing none of your own troops...killing the same amount you would over a period of time.It is simple math to me and it seems eventually push comes to shove the bigger dogs will flex more of that muscle maybe.You KNOW if Iran aquires a Bomb...they will use it you know it, and if not will you gamble that they won't? If I was Israel I would not....I only wish America had the ballz to stand up for what is right.And yes by that logic Korea,Syria, Cuba and whatever other ding dongs rocking the boat should be put down so the world could get on with solving it's real problems like feeding the straving, curing disease, and maybe figuring out how to colonize the other planets etc.....

Alas this is a hypothetical..but if the Anciant Roman mentality ever kicks back in...watch out....it won't be Sunday night football...it will be Sunday night throwing terrorist wannabes into the lions pit.....

PS...God I pray I am not here to see this ever happen. :)

Buy the man a beer on me. :()1: Hit them hard, hit them fast, hit them now!!!

There are 3 kinds of republicans. As I said, there is overlap among the categories and each category could even be broken down into further sub categories, but I didn't have the time or the inclination to further elaborate on what I'd already written in what was already a lengthy post.

Hit a nerve did I?

Based on what you've written here and elsewhere I would put you squarely in the "dittohead" category. Why? Because based on your personal info you obviously don't fit category #1, being not even close to the socioeconomic class that defines that category, and which is the only class that benefits from republican policies.

I also get the feeling you don't vote based on whatever candidate Pat Robertson endorses, or based exclusively on any of the usual wedge issues that republicans bring up around election time to get out the category 2 vote (gay marriage, flag burning, immigration, abortion) even if you happen to agree with their positions, its not enough to get out your vote.

However you fit category 3 to a tee. You claim your an "independent", you admit you're a Rush fan, and you probably voted for Bush both times in spite of the fact that his policies have not only done absolutely nothing for you personally (your share of his biggest political plank, tax cuts, being not only next to nothing but grossly offset by the price of everything else that has increased since from the trippling of oil prices to state and municipal taxes that have had to have been raised, along with indirect federal "taxes" that have been raised or increased to make up for the shortfall and usually aimed directly at the middle and working classes) but have likely factored into a worsening of your personal circumstances since he came into office and began slashing funds to the VA and cutting back on other social programs that you may have benefitted from before or been able to benefit by now if they were still around (though you'd never admit it).

I'm very opinionated. My opinions, though, are not formed from listening to the RNC talking points pushed every night by Rush Limbaugh, but from a social science background that includes many courses in sociology, criminology, economics, and political science augmented by a regular reading of news and editorials from a variety of sources. That doesn't make my opinions "right", or "wrong", as opinions are just that... I am open, however, to accepting proven facts that the Reps have made a science out of downplaying and I'm immune to their particular brand of belligerent nationalism (being Canadian would probably account for the latter).

Of course, after all you're an "Independent". :roll:

[Edit] Recommended reading: Confessions of a Former Dittohead. I'm assuming you have a library card, periodically use it, and you claim to be open minded... and this isn't written by a left-wing kook, but by a lifelong conservative... its also a quick, light hearted read.

/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.