PDA

View Full Version : Democrats' Memory Loss



DolphinDevil28
02-09-2004, 07:29 PM
Maybe this will put all you liberals' BS claims that Bush lied to rest.


>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
>develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
>That
>is our bottom line."
>- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>
>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
>We
>want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program."
>- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
>"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
>deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
>nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
>greatest security threat we face."
>- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
>since 1983." S
>- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
>"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
>U.S.
>Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
>appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
>effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
>mass destruction programs."
>- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
>John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
>
>"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
>destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
>he
>has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
>- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
>
>"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
>destruction and palaces for his cronies."
>- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
>
>"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
>programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
>continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
>Saddam
>continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover
>of
>a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
>threaten
>the United States and our allies."
>- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
>others,
>December 5, 2001
>
>"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
>threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
>mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
>destruction
>and the means of delivering them."
>- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
>
>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
>weapons throughout his country."
>- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
>deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
>in power."
>- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
>developing
>
>weapons of mass destruction."
>- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
>
>"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
>confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
>biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
>build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
>reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
>- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
>
>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>authority
>to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
>that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
>real
>and grave threat to our security."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
>aggressively
>to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within
>the
>next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
>the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
>destruction."
>- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
>
>"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
>every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
>destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
>This
>he has refused to do" Rep.
>- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
>
>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
>that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
>weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
>He
>has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
>Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
>Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
>chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
>- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
>"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
>Saddam
>Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
>the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
>- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
>
>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to his
>continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
>... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
>real ..."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
>
>SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY
>WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
>HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....................

Kamikaze
02-09-2004, 08:25 PM
The question at hand was whether or not he knew his intelligence was faulty or not. Either Bush lied outright or our intelligence services blew it big-time. Either way, he's not doing a whole lot of anything but dodging the questions he gets asked (if anyone still bothers to) about the WMD intelligence. Bush is the president. Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?

Oh, and grabbing quotes from six years ago is definitely grasping at straws.

DolphinDevil28
02-10-2004, 01:12 AM
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

So that's what the liberals are down to now? "Oh, Bush KNEW his intelegence was faulty." ARE YOU SERIOUS???

And no my friend, that is not grasping at straws. These quotes prove how hypocritical liberals are.

And, read the dates again. Alot of them are from 2003, including the one from your dem. leading candidate, John Kerry.

Dolfan02
02-10-2004, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

And, read the dates again. Alot of them are from 2003, including the one from your dem. leading candidate, John Kerry.

Its just funny how this stuff just flies over their heads sometimes.

What's even funnier is comparing the quotes of John Kerry from last year, and then hearing what he says now. Its just a bunch of political election season hypocrisy.

Tim Russert on Meet The Press interviewed John Kerry about 1 month ago and pulled up several quotes that were said by Mr. Kerry pertaining to the Iraq War, and Kerry was all in favor for going to War, he said he was totally behind Bush. (I guess its those quotes DD28 posted up above). And Kerry responded with nothing but choking. Kerry was trying so hard to explain himself by twisting words and stuttering, that I literally felt bad for him. I told myself there is no way this poor guy will even finish the primary elections because he's been caught as a supporter of Bush. But then what do you know!! He's the leading Democratic candidate! I'm completely dumbfounded by the Democrats!!!!

DolphinDevil28
02-10-2004, 06:39 PM
Nothing surprises me about them anymore, 02.

MrClean
02-10-2004, 10:56 PM
Those quotes may be correct, although it appears you copied and pasted them out of an email that was sent to you. When I post something other than my opinion, I will also post the source. May I suggest that you do the same if you want your posts to have credibility.

Before I would totally believe all of those quotes to be 100% accurate I would prefer to know which media source they came from.

Is that asking too much?

DolphinDevil28
02-10-2004, 11:06 PM
Yes, it was compiled in an e-mail, but most of them come from rueters.

DeDolfan
02-11-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

So that's what the liberals are down to now? "Oh, Bush KNEW his intelegence was faulty." ARE YOU SERIOUS???

And no my friend, that is not grasping at straws. These quotes prove how hypocritical liberals are.

And, read the dates again. Alot of them are from 2003, including the one from your dem. leading candidate, John Kerry.

this is unbelievable!
Now you're using forwarded emails as a basis for proof???
I'll bet you're still sitting by your mailbox everyday just waitinf for that $5000 check from bill gates to come!!
Really now !! talk about new lows!! :lol: :lol: :D :D

DolphinDevil28
02-11-2004, 06:55 PM
Yeah, that's it... :rolleyes:

Who cares if it came in an e-mail? IT IS A LIST OF REAL QUOTES. Stop being a typical liberal trying to wiggle around everything. FACE THE FACTS that liberals are huge hypocrits about this whole situation.

Marino1983
02-11-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

So that's what the liberals are down to now? "Oh, Bush KNEW his intelegence was faulty." ARE YOU SERIOUS???

And no my friend, that is not grasping at straws. These quotes prove how hypocritical liberals are.

And, read the dates again. Alot of them are from 2003, including the one from your dem. leading candidate, John Kerry.



That is all the right wing loyalist seem to know how to do ... Accuse democrats of being liberal ...


:huh: Hypocrisy reeks from 99% of the republican base !

It was well know that W had a hard - on S Hussein because of daddy Bush didn't have the gonads to finish the job ...

This whole war was based on the hard cold facts that Hussein HAD WMD..... Not that there was a possibility that Hussein could POSSIBLY build these weapons !!!!!!!

As hard as they try the republican spin just doesn't seem to be working this time for little georgie.. No matter how much money he has gathered for his :laughat: re-election campaign...

:eat:

Marino1983

PhinPhan1227
02-12-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Marino1983




That is all the right wing loyalist seem to know how to do ... Accuse democrats of being liberal ...


:huh: Hypocrisy reeks from 99% of the republican base !

It was well know that W had a hard - on S Hussein because of daddy Bush didn't have the gonads to finish the job ...

This whole war was based on the hard cold facts that Hussein HAD WMD..... Not that there was a possibility that Hussein could POSSIBLY build these weapons !!!!!!!

As hard as they try the republican spin just doesn't seem to be working this time for little georgie.. No matter how much money he has gathered for his :laughat: re-election campaign...

:eat:

Marino1983

So since Bill Clinton also had a plan in place to remove Saddam Hussein, he ALSO had a hard on for him? PLEASE. I'll fully agree that GW screwed up by focusing on WMD's, when he had other justifiable reasons for war. And I said that before the war was fought. But bad PR choices is hardly a reason for chosing one President over another.

ohall
02-12-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Marino1983




That is all the right wing loyalist seem to know how to do ... Accuse democrats of being liberal ...


:huh: Hypocrisy reeks from 99% of the republican base !

It was well know that W had a hard - on S Hussein because of daddy Bush didn't have the gonads to finish the job ...

This whole war was based on the hard cold facts that Hussein HAD WMD..... Not that there was a possibility that Hussein could POSSIBLY build these weapons !!!!!!!

As hard as they try the republican spin just doesn't seem to be working this time for little georgie.. No matter how much money he has gathered for his :laughat: re-election campaign...

:eat:

Marino1983

That doesn't make any sense M-83. Clinton also had it out for Saddam. After Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush #41 Clinton went after Saddam, he bomed him for 12 days I believe. The problem is Clinton made a mistake of treating Saddam like a criminal not a War criminal. With Clinton America was the UN's patsy. That's not how it should be. The UN is supposed to be a tool for justice and freedom. When a country thumbs it's nose at an orginization for 12-years enough is enough. For that orginization to be taken seriously they have to act. After 9/11 it was simply time to act before Saddam decided to use his WMD against America thru terrorist orginizations. It's only common sense after all.

Bush #43 spent nearly 12 months in the UN before going into Iraq trying for the last time to get Saddam to follow the rule of law that the UN had layed down.

The problem I have with most DEM's with this whole where are the WMD's thing? Is if Bush did not go after Saddam and about now or a year from now a WMD was set off in a populated part of America and that WMD had connections to Saddam the DEM's would be the 1st to be asking why didn't Bush #43 deal with Saddam when he had his chance?

Honestly, making political $ off of this is going to bite anyone in the butt who is trying to make political $ off of this. This is not football. This is the real world, and Ameican's do not like when innocent American's die because a President is lazy. I think most American's would agree it's better for soldiers to be fighting terrorist in a foreign country than reg citizens having to die in American cities.

Also far as I can tell, that so called REP SPIN seems to working just fine. DEM's have been on a serious losing streak since 1998. Obviously if it's SPIN it's working wonderful. IMO it's reality, not SPIN.

Oliver...

ohall
02-12-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


So since Bill Clinton also had a plan in place to remove Saddam Hussein, he ALSO had a hard on for him? PLEASE. I'll fully agree that GW screwed up by focusing on WMD's, when he had other justifiable reasons for war. And I said that before the war was fought. But bad PR choices is hardly a reason for chosing one President over another.

I don't think he screwed up. In time it will become clear just how right he was. And if he was wrong, I'd rather he be wrong than innocent American's dieing in American cities because a President didn't act because he was scared he would be wrong. This country can only take so many Clinton like Presidents before it would fall apart.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-12-2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by ohall


I don't think he screwed up. In time it will become clear just how right he was. And if he was wrong, I'd rather he be wrong than innocent American's dieing in American cities because a President didn't act because he was scared he would be wrong. This country can only take so many Clinton like Presidents before it would fall apart.

Oliver...

You misread me. Attacking Iraq was not wrong. Spinning it that we were attacking just because of WMD's being present was wrong. Bush had NUMEROUS other legal and moral justifications he could have and should have used. It was a PR mistake. In my opinion, Bush had justification based SOLELY on the fact that Saddam was being evasive, he had sought weapons in the past, and he would seek them again if given the chance. That's all he needed to be covered, and that's what he should have stuck with.

ohall
02-12-2004, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


You misread me. Attacking Iraq was not wrong. Spinning it that we were attacking just because of WMD's being present was wrong. Bush had NUMEROUS other legal and moral justifications he could have and should have used. It was a PR mistake. In my opinion, Bush had justification based SOLELY on the fact that Saddam was being evasive, he had sought weapons in the past, and he would seek them again if given the chance. That's all he needed to be covered, and that's what he should have stuck with.

I didn't mis-read anything. Bush will be proven correct becuase of WMD in Iraq. That is what I believe. The very fact that they found Iraq in breech of so many things already IMO Bush has been proven correct about WMD in Iraq.

Some are looking for large missle programs that have nuclear and biological ammunitions in them. I never thought that was the case to begin with, at least not where they were a year ago. It was all about what Iraq would have done with the terrorist and their known WMD's.

Anyone that feels Saddam was not going to sell or give terrorist their known WMD's to smuggle into and use in America are just naive. Not saying that's you at all 1227. But there are some on this MBoard and politicians out there that are looking to make political $ of off and in turn would rather gamble with innocent American lives rather than taking care of business.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-12-2004, 12:55 PM
I'm not talking about whether Saddam had WMD's when we invaded. I'm talking about the mistake of EMPHASISING those weapons as the reason for invasion. There were more established reasons that were and are verified. Had he stuck to those reasons rather than putting so much effort into the WMD search, he wouldn't be having these problems. I said that before the war and unfortunately I was right.

DeDolfan
02-12-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
Yeah, that's it... :rolleyes:

Who cares if it came in an e-mail? IT IS A LIST OF REAL QUOTES. Stop being a typical liberal trying to wiggle around everything. FACE THE FACTS that liberals are huge hypocrits about this whole situation.

Oh, I am SO sorry. If i read it on the internet, particularly one of those forwarded 99% of the time urban legends, then it just HAS to be all true. How ridiculous of me to even think otherwise!!
But any day now, that Taco Bell dog will be running across your screen. Don't miss it now!!

If you are going to post junk from another email like that as fact, then at least include verification. This is about as far as a reach as i've ever seen.

MrClean
02-12-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I'm not talking about whether Saddam had WMD's when we invaded. I'm talking about the mistake of EMPHASISING those weapons as the reason for invasion. There were more established reasons that were and are verified. Had he stuck to those reasons rather than putting so much effort into the WMD search, he wouldn't be having these problems. I said that before the war and unfortunately I was right.

What are the more established reasons that in YOUR opinion would have been justifiable reasons on their own merit to invade, even if the WMD were a non issue? Please don't tell me just because he was an evil dictator.

PhinPhan1227
02-12-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by MrClean


What are the more established reasons that in YOUR opinion would have been justifiable reasons on their own merit to invade, even if the WMD were a non issue? Please don't tell me just because he was an evil dictator.


Gulf War I ended under the agreement that Saddam would submit to weapons inspections and PROVE that he was not pursuing any WMD's, and had destroyed existing stockpiles+. At that point he was for all intents "under probation". The only thing keeping him in power was his compliance with that agreement. When he CONTINUED to attempt to conceal things from the inspectors and restrict their movements he in essense violated that parole. That was the reason for the UN vote allowing the use of force. The weapons themselves were immaterial. Since he had demonstrated a willingness to sek them out, and use them, Saddams failure to PROVE that he had ceased all such efforts was sufficient legal and moral justification for his removal.

DeDolfan
02-12-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Gulf War I ended under the agreement that Saddam would submit to weapons inspections and PROVE that he was not pursuing any WMD's, and had destroyed existing stockpiles+. At that point he was for all intents "under probation". The only thing keeping him in power was his compliance with that agreement. When he CONTINUED to attempt to conceal things from the inspectors and restrict their movements he in essense violated that parole. That was the reason for the UN vote allowing the use of force. The weapons themselves were immaterial. Since he had demonstrated a willingness to sek them out, and use them, Saddams failure to PROVE that he had ceased all such efforts was sufficient legal and moral justification for his removal.

i understand all of that but since when was the US appointed as the sole law enforcing agency?? iMO, that is where alot of the Qs come from.

Marino1983
02-12-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by ohall


That doesn't make any sense M-83. Clinton also had it out for Saddam. After Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush #41 Clinton went after Saddam, he bomed him for 12 days I believe. The problem is Clinton made a mistake of treating Saddam like a criminal not a War criminal. With Clinton America was the UN's patsy. That's not how it should be. The UN is supposed to be a tool for justice and freedom. When a country thumbs it's nose at an orginization for 12-years enough is enough. For that orginization to be taken seriously they have to act. After 9/11 it was simply time to act before Saddam decided to use his WMD against America thru terrorist orginizations. It's only common sense after all.

Bush #43 spent nearly 12 months in the UN before going into Iraq trying for the last time to get Saddam to follow the rule of law that the UN had layed down.

The problem I have with most DEM's with this whole where are the WMD's thing? Is if Bush did not go after Saddam and about now or a year from now a WMD was set off in a populated part of America and that WMD had connections to Saddam the DEM's would be the 1st to be asking why didn't Bush #43 deal with Saddam when he had his chance?

Honestly, making political $ off of this is going to bite anyone in the butt who is trying to make political $ off of this. This is not football. This is the real world, and Ameican's do not like when innocent American's die because a President is lazy. I think most American's would agree it's better for soldiers to be fighting terrorist in a foreign country than reg citizens having to die in American cities.

Also far as I can tell, that so called REP SPIN seems to working just fine. DEM's have been on a serious losing streak since 1998. Obviously if it's SPIN it's working wonderful. IMO it's reality, not SPIN.

Oliver...


I am not going to break down information step by step to prove my opinions as fact to you Oliver... But Bush seems very concerned that his (how should I put it) embellishment on the Iraqis WMD will not go away and his poll #'s prove that !!

As far as the "REP SPIN" working ,,,, :roflmao: we will see how good that "spin' is working come this November Oliver ...

W cannot not blame the democrats for the countrys 5 trillion dollar deficit, unemployment, Medicare costs, etc.etc. because HIS party has the majority in congress..

And some of us taxpayers / VOTERS do not look at your hero through rose colored glasses Oliver ..................

:pirate:

Marino1983

Marino1983
02-12-2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I'm not talking about whether Saddam had WMD's when we invaded. I'm talking about the mistake of EMPHASISING those weapons as the reason for invasion. There were more established reasons that were and are verified. Had he stuck to those reasons rather than putting so much effort into the WMD search, he wouldn't be having these problems. I said that before the war and unfortunately I was right.


As much as I loath the Bush administration,, I can pretty much agree with your analysis and opinion of why W is on the (24-7 media) HOT SEAT .....

:D

Marino1983

ohall
02-12-2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I'm not talking about whether Saddam had WMD's when we invaded. I'm talking about the mistake of EMPHASISING those weapons as the reason for invasion. There were more established reasons that were and are verified. Had he stuck to those reasons rather than putting so much effort into the WMD search, he wouldn't be having these problems. I said that before the war and unfortunately I was right.

Iraq's WMD became very important after 9/11. If he did nothing and terrorist used WMD from Iraq I doubt he could have lived with himself. Again I thought he was very smart to do what he did, and in time I have no doubt his actions will be proven wise.

No matter what he said or what case he made for War, the DEMS would be doing what they are doing right now. Nothing would have changed.

Oliver...

ohall
02-12-2004, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


i understand all of that but since when was the US appointed as the sole law enforcing agency?? iMO, that is where alot of the Qs come from.

If that were true you'd have a point.

Oliver...

ohall
02-12-2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983



I am not going to break down information step by step to prove my opinions as fact to you Oliver... But Bush seems very concerned that his (how should I put it) embellishment on the Iraqis WMD will not go away and his poll #'s prove that !!

As far as the "REP SPIN" working ,,,, :roflmao: we will see how good that "spin' is working come this November Oliver ...

W cannot not blame the democrats for the countrys 5 trillion dollar deficit, unemployment, Medicare costs, etc.etc. because HIS party has the majority in congress..

And some of us taxpayers / VOTERS do not look at your hero through rose colored glasses Oliver ..................

:pirate:

Marino1983

1st off, he was not the only one that thought what he thought about Iraq and their WMD. He made a decision based on his best available info. If you want to fault him for that, that's fine. I won't go there. It wouldn't matter to me what political party a President came from, if that President is trying to make our country safer I'm all for it.

The only reason he is concerned is because unlike his father he is not going to give the DEMS a free ride like his father did with Clinton. You cannot let attacks go unanswered for very long in today's politics. The way the media handles themselves won't allow that to be the case any longer.

OK if you feel that Bush is not to blame for the recession I'm cool with that. I don't think he is either.

Bush is not my HERO. He does however have my respect. He has made tough decisions, and led this country after a very difficult time. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't like him. But HERO? No he's not my HERO. :D

Oliver...

MrClean
02-12-2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983



I am not going to break down information step by step to prove my opinions as fact to you Oliver... But Bush seems very concerned that his (how should I put it) embellishment on the Iraqis WMD will not go away and his poll #'s prove that !!

As far as the "REP SPIN" working ,,,, :roflmao: we will see how good that "spin' is working come this November Oliver ...

W cannot not blame the democrats for the countrys 5 trillion dollar deficit, unemployment, Medicare costs, etc.etc. because HIS party has the majority in congress..

And some of us taxpayers / VOTERS do not look at your hero through rose colored glasses Oliver ..................

:pirate:

Marino1983

Not to mention this administration's total disdain for the environment, opening the Tongass up for logging, wanting to drill for oil in the Artic Wildlife Refuge, etc etc, and looking at the backgrounds of his judicial nominees is enough to scare any average person, those reasons alone are enough for me to despise this sorry azz excuse for a president. Not to mention anyone who would appoint a sorry piece of sh1t like Ashcroft for A/G, but that is a subject for another time...

PhinPhan1227
02-13-2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by ohall


Iraq's WMD became very important after 9/11. If he did nothing and terrorist used WMD from Iraq I doubt he could have lived with himself. Again I thought he was very smart to do what he did, and in time I have no doubt his actions will be proven wise.

No matter what he said or what case he made for War, the DEMS would be doing what they are doing right now. Nothing would have changed.

Oliver...

Again, I have to assume you misunderstand me. I WANTED him to go into Iraq. I WANTED him to take EVERY action he took. What I DISAGREE with is placing the EMPHASIS for going to war on the PRESENCE of WMD's. They're TOO easy to move, hide, or destroy to place THAT much emphasis on that ONE element. He could have still mentioned the PRESENCE of WMD's, while placing the TRUE emphasis on the THREAT of his PROGRAMS to PROCURE more WMD's. You keep talking about ACTIONS, when I'm only talking about his stated REASONS for the war. I'm talking about speeches, and you're talking about the actual war. Get on the same page.

PhinPhan1227
02-13-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


i understand all of that but since when was the US appointed as the sole law enforcing agency?? iMO, that is where alot of the Qs come from.


The other nations in positions to stop Saddam were doing BUSINESS with Saddam(Russia, France, Germany). So you're asking why we had to be the sole cop(along with our trusty sidekick England), when the other cops were on the take? If you want the comfort and security of being the worlds sole Superpower, you have to accept the responsability that comes with it.

ohall
02-13-2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Again, I have to assume you misunderstand me. I WANTED him to go into Iraq. I WANTED him to take EVERY action he took. What I DISAGREE with is placing the EMPHASIS for going to war on the PRESENCE of WMD's. They're TOO easy to move, hide, or destroy to place THAT much emphasis on that ONE element. He could have still mentioned the PRESENCE of WMD's, while placing the TRUE emphasis on the THREAT of his PROGRAMS to PROCURE more WMD's. You keep talking about ACTIONS, when I'm only talking about his stated REASONS for the war. I'm talking about speeches, and you're talking about the actual war. Get on the same page.

As usual 1227, you're never wrong even when you're talking about what someone else is thinking.

I was simply doing my best to find some middle ground with your constant obsession to attempt to control other posters. I see that is not possible. Think what you like.

Peace.

Oliver...

ohall
02-13-2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by MrClean


Not to mention this administration's total disdain for the environment, opening the Tongass up for logging, wanting to drill for oil in the Artic Wildlife Refuge, etc etc

Making more fuel efficient cars is not going to cut it. The population is growing beyond that type of approach. It's going to take more than just making more fuel efficient cars.

Let me ask you, how else is America to control or stop its dependance in foreign oil?

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-13-2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by ohall


As usual 1227, you're never wrong even when you're talking about what someone else is thinking.

I was simply doing my best to find some middle ground with your constant obsession to attempt to control other posters. I see that is not possible. Think what you like.

Peace.

Oliver...

Look Oliver...when you respond to one of my posts in a fashion which misrepresents that post, it's my right to correct that misrepresentation. I never disputed the validity of invading Iraq, and yet you make comments like

"If he did nothing and terrorist used WMD from Iraq I doubt he could have lived with himself. Again I thought he was very smart to do what he did, and in time I have no doubt his actions will be proven wise."

By making that statement you intimate that I was arguing against the invasion when I did nothing of the sort. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or analyse your thoughts. I'm just trying to maqke sure that I'm not misrepresented. And stating that you misunderstood me is the politest way I can think of to do that.

DeDolfan
02-13-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by ohall


If that were true you'd have a point.

Oliver...

IMO, it more than likely is [true].