[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Why is it that people/Dems only want to focus on the WMD issue of Iraq?

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE LIVING UNDER A TYRANT WHO KILLED AND TORTURED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE?

That's okay?

I could give a rat's *ss about WMD, to be honest. I supported going into Iraq because I think the preeminent reason was to give people in the region a chance at religious, political, and educational freedom.

WMD is at the bottom of the list to go in there. It was one of the symptoms of a corrupt and evil regime, ONE of the reasons to go in there, not THE reason.

Give me a better example than WMD.

WMD is at the bottom of the list to go in there ONLY AFTER THEY DISCOVERED NO WMD. They had to change the objectives once they realized their original objectives were BS.

[Zimphire]

Another lefist spin.

There was many reasons they gave to go into Iraq. WMD was just one of them.

"You say something enough and it becomes true"

Unless there are people around that know better.

[Cody Dawg]

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD LIVING IN SUCH CONDITIONS? WHY HAVEN'T YOU INVADED THOSE PLACES YET, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT?!

Maybe we will?

Maybe we should?

People didn't complain much AFTER taking out Hitler, remember? That's considered a momentus accomplishment.

Show me one Jew or German that wishes that we hadn't gotten Hitler out of Germany.

One thing you mentioned is that you are not an American.

Well, then you don't understand, perhaps, how important it is to stand behind the people and their loved ones who are in Iraq because they believe they are making the world a safer and better place.

I'm behind W and going into Iraq because I think that Iraq will be a better place in the future. I'm behind W and going into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a crazy and unpredictable tyrant. I'm behind W and going into Iraq because that's where fellow Americans are and they need the support of Americans here in the United States.

Notice that I don't care about whether or not WMD were there.

Saddam Hussein was a WMD in and unto himself.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Another lefist spin.

There was many reasons they gave to go into Iraq. WMD was just one of them.

BS.

WMD was THE REASON to invade Iraq initially, and any other reason was created AFTER no WMD were found. See, this is the mantra the Reps are trying to hypnotize the country with: Saddam was evil, he had to be removed, he had "weapons of mass distruction program related activities", whatever that means...those people NEEDED democracy...blahblahblah.

Please. Some of us have been paying attention.

[Cody Dawg]

Like I said, most people here view Saddam Hussein himself to be WMD.

Seriously. That guy was crazy.

He wanted nuclear arms to menace everyone with.

I have a feeling that THAT was why we wanted him out of there: a tyrant with a nuclear bomb is a scary thing.

WMD = Any tyrant with nuclear aspirations

[zigzag]

Yes, Bush speaks with more certitude, which pleases people, especially people who like to have things simplified. The problem is that talk is not enough - you still have to plan and execute well, and make sound decisions. This Bush has not done. Iraq is a mess and as far as I can tell he has no more idea what's going to happen there than Kerry does. Yet people continue to fall for the simplistic "I'm-fighting-terrorism" rhetoric. As far as I'm concerned, he's all hat and no cattle.

I agree that Kerry needs to do a much better job of articulating his positions. I'm just not sure that Bush really has any better an idea of where he's going. As far as I can tell, he just talks a better game.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
BS.

WMD was THE REASON to invade Iraq initially, and any other reason was created AFTER no WMD were found. See, this is the mantra the Reps are trying to hypnotize the country with: Saddam was evil, he had to be removed, he had "weapons of mass distruction program related activities", whatever that means...those people NEEDED democracy...blahblahblah.

Please. Some of us have been paying attention.

Oh I have been paying attention too. The "WMD WAS THE ONLY REASON" was a fabrication made up by the left. The repeated it enough hoping it would suddenly become the truth.

The fed it out to all the pastures, and the sheep ate it up like it was the finest canarygrass ever!

[OldManMac]

I happen to like Teresa, because she says what's on her mind. A lot of people can't handle that kind of stuff, because they're not used to women being so vocal and opinionated. And she is right; the Democratic Party is putrid, even more so than 1976. They've become, for the most part, indistinguishable from the Republican Party. There is no one in a powerful position today who speaks up for the "average" American today, and that's why we're being lead around via rings in our noses.

BTW, I can't stand her husband, and I dislike King George even more, because he's nothing but a tool for Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and the extreme right.

CodyDawg, you asked for some George Bush flip-flops. http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=118263

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
...a tyrant with a nuclear bomb is a scary thing.

WMD = Any tyrant with nuclear aspirations

100% agreed.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
WMD = Any tyrant with nuclear aspirations

Exactly makes my point. Now you're trying to redefine the mission after the fact, which is EXACTLY what Bush/Cheney is trying to do.

You know, you guys are obviously intelligent and make some good points now and then, but this is ridiculous. If a Dem/lefty was saying the things you're saying, you'd be blowing smoke out your ears and crying foul. Get real.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I have been paying attention too. The "WMD WAS THE ONLY REASON" was a fabrication made up by the left. The repeated it enough hoping it would suddenly become the truth.

The fed it out to all the pastures, and the sheep ate it up like it was the finest canarygrass ever!

Not denying (or comfirming) it wasn't a leftist spin, but I don't remember reading/hearing anything but WMDs before we went into Iraq. Do you have any sources that back up your statement? Perhaps some articles from that time (i.e., before March 2003) with quotes from the Bush Admin giving other reasons besides WMDs for going into Iraq?

EDIT: not denying or comfirming

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
*SNIP*
100% agreed.

Bush has never talked about using nukes. That's just a flat-out lie.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:


100% agreed.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I have been paying attention too. The "WMD WAS THE ONLY REASON" was a fabrication made up by the left. The repeated it enough hoping it would suddenly become the truth.

The fed it out to all the pastures, and the sheep ate it up like it was the finest canarygrass ever!

OK, SHOW ME. Let's have a linky. SHOW ME where Bush said something OTHER THAN WMD as his reason for invading Iraq.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KarlG:
CodyDawg, you asked for some George Bush flip-flops. http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=118263

A lot of those have been debunked in here before as none-flip flops.

For example

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

That isn't flip flopping.

He said he doesn't anticipate needing more money. He was wrong. He didn't change his mind.

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]


...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

That isn't flip flopping. He still thought it was silly, and that she shouldn't had to have testified. But did it just to shut the leftist whiners up.

The list goes on.

This list was a straw-grab.

[Spliffdaddy]

You hafta figure that the next time we threaten to kick a country's ass - for whatever reason - they'll likely believe we aren't just whistling Dixie. Think of the lives that'll save. A threat that means something...imagine that (ps, the French will never have this experience).

Yeah, I think the next time our words will be more powerful - backed by a broader history of action.

What? You don't think we'll come over there and snatch your ass outta that hole you're hiding in? Bitchslap your army and build a McDonald's on every corner - while we send your kids to Bible school.

You don't want none of this. We're f-ing nuts. And we don't much care what the rest of the world thinks. Ain't like they'll come to your rescue.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Yes it's a vast right wing conspiracy!

Kerry has never flipped flopped! We are just making it up!

That whole Being for Iraq then against it, then for it thing never happened!

Where's that "turning everything I say into a bizzare absolute" Dilbert post when we need it?

My point was that Kerry has a rather detailed position paper written up, and while there's lots of fluff in it, there are some concrete proposals there. Why aren't we debating those?

Just read this page for a moment:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/family.html

It basically boils down to expanding the Federal role in providing health insurance and paying for it by repealing part of the Bush tax cut. Are we debating this on its merits, and comparing it to Bush's health care plan? No we aren't, because we can't convince people like you that Kerry has a plan when he put it up on his friggin' website!

I'm sure that Kerry has changed his mind in the past. I won't hold his feet to the fire over the Iraq thing, because I think that the Senate is a deliberative body where people craft the best positions they can given the information they have at the time. There's a reason why very few Senators have been elected to be President recently, and it's because they are exposed to attacks like this. (To be fair, I'm not exactly thrilled with Kerry's exaplanation of his deliberative process, either.) But screaming "Flip-Flopper" is just as bad as the Angry Left screaming "liar" every time Bush speaks. There might be elements of truth to both labels, but they add nothing to the debate...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
OK, SHOW ME. Let's have a linky. SHOW ME where Bush said something OTHER THAN WMD as his reason for invading Iraq.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests,"

[Cody Dawg]

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

George W. Bush February 26, 2003

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You hafta figure that the next time we threaten to kick a country's ass - for whatever reason - they'll likely believe we aren't just whistling Dixie. Think of the lives that'll save. A threat that means something...imagine that (ps, the French will never have this experience).

Yeah, I think the next time our words will be more powerful - backed by a broader history of action.

What? You don't think we'll come over there and snatch your ass outta that hole you're hiding in? Bitchslap your army and build a McDonald's on every corner - while we send your kids to Bible school.

You don't want none of this. We're f-ing nuts. And we don't much care what the rest of the world thinks. Ain't like they'll come to your rescue.

That's right; violence solves everything. God is on our side! The beatings will continue until the morale improves! Killing saves lives! You will like us!

You're a riot!

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests,"

...using WMD, right? We were told Saddam had WMD, was planning to USE WMD against the US, and that we were in imminent danger. NONE of that was found to be true, and all we've heard since are a number of alternative reasons for invading.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Bush has never talked about using nukes. That's just a flat-out lie.

pfff, ridiculous replay, - as usual!

where did i say "he talked about using them"?

oh, yeah, that's why the need the "mini nukes" now.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

All of that was seasoning, a number of supporting reasons for invading....NONE of which, taken alone, would have been reason enough to invade. The reason given was WMD.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
...using WMD, right? We were told Saddam had WMD, was planning to USE WMD against the US, and that we were in imminent danger. NONE of that was found to be true, and all we've heard since are a number of alternative reasons for invading.

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraq...

Same Bush speech.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
...using WMD, right? We were told Saddam had WMD, was planning to USE WMD against the US, and that we were in imminent danger. NONE of that was found to be true, and all we've heard since are a number of alternative reasons for invading.

LAWL! No not just with WMD! WIth helping out terrorists as well! Remember Bush said this was still a war on TERROR and Iraq was a harborer of such things.

You lefties always seem to forget that part. On purpose.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LAWL! No not just with WMD! WIth helping out terrorists as well! Remember Bush said this was still a war on TERROR and Iraq was a harborer of such things.

You lefties always seem to forget that part. On purpose.

And have we found that Saddam was a "harborer of such things"? Or did we find out that Saddam had practically nothing in common with Al Qeda and in fact did not want them in his country?

For the sake of argument, let's say that's one of the reasons the US invaded. Where are they, the terrorists? Same place the WMD are? Buried in the desert perhaps?

Fact is, now there ARE terrorists in Iraq and you can thank Bush.

By the way...I would like to acknowledge that none of this has anything to do with Teresa Heinz Kerry...ahem.

[Cody Dawg]

Zimphire -- too true.

All of that was seasoning, a number of supporting reasons for invading....NONE of which, taken alone, would have been reason enough to invade. The reason given was WMD.

"Seasoning?"

LOL!

There were MANY reasons for going into Iraq, not just WMD.

The truth is that the Democrats have very few things to seize on, so they seize on the WMD like a pack of dogs on an old bone.

[Cody Dawg]

By the way...I would like to acknowledge that none of this has anything to do with Teresa Heinz Kerry...ahem.

Thanks, KaBlooey.



Doesn't really matter, though.

Whenever I hear Teresa Heinz Kerry or see a splat of red ketchup on my plate I'm reminded of WMD -- somehow she must remind other people of the same.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:


The truth is that the Democrats have very few things to seize on, so they seize on the WMD like a pack of dogs on an old bone.

The right is depending on people forgetting it. Not gonna happen here.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
And have we found that Saddam was a "harborer of such things"? Or did we find out that Saddam had practically nothing in common with Al Qeda and in fact did not want them in his country?

The 9/11 comission came to the conclusion that there was NO DOUBT that Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda

For the sake of argument, let's say that's one of the reasons the US invaded. Where are they, the terrorists? Same place the WMD are? Buried in the desert perhaps?

Fact is, now there ARE terrorists in Iraq and you can thank Bush.

Nonsense and more FUD. There was terrorists in Iraq well before this.

By the way...I would like to acknowledge that none of this has anything to do with Teresa Heinz Kerry...ahem.

I am sure you want to get it back to the topic. Esp after you've just been proven wrong.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
The right is depending on people forgetting it. Not gonna happen here.

No it's the left that is hoping that. They are hoping people will grasp onto the "WMD WAS THE ONLY REASON"

I mean look at you. You've been proven wrong in this thread, and yet you are STILL going on like you haven't been.

Get a grip.

[Cody Dawg]

I am sure you want to get it back to the topic. Esp after you've just been proven wrong.

You guys all crack me up.

[Zimphire]

What is so funny about it? We indeed did what I said we did. He asked for proof, we gave it to him. Now comes the denial period I guess.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No it's the left that is hoping that. They are hoping people will grasp onto the "WMD WAS THE ONLY REASON"

I mean look at you. You've been proven wrong in this thread, and yet you are STILL going on like you haven't been.

Get a grip.

Right. OK then. If you can't stay with it, declare victory and move on, I get it. I should have known better, but I thought there was actually some sincere back and forth here.

In conclusion, keep lying in plain sight, you do it well. It's what your party is doing and is the most Orwellian thing I've seen in my lifetime.

[Cody Dawg]

Hey, Zimph, you're the king of pics...

Got any good ones of Teresa?

(Or anyone else?)

[Spliffdaddy]

cambodia

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Right. OK then. If you can't stay with it, declare victory and move on, I get it. I should have known better, but I thought there was actually some sincere back and forth here.

Stay with it? WTH are you going on about? You asked me to prove something. I did. Now you are being all negative, while acting like no one has proved anything to you.

What's up with that?

In conclusion, keep lying in plain sight, you do it well. It's what your party is doing and is the most Orwellian thing I've seen in my lifetime.

The only person here lying is YOU! Well it may not being you lying. Because you might actually believe what you are saying. Which is sad.

Again, you asked me to prove something. Not only did I prove it, others did as well. It's not OUR fault you have been misinformed.

[daimoni]

.

[Cody Dawg]

Cambodia?

I'm sorry, but what's the relevance?

(I remember way back when, when I was in school, we had Cambodian refugees come and stay with us through our church. Family of four kids. They were tiny little people, didn't speak a word of English, but they were nice. Needed a home to stay in and we had them live with us for about 6 months. They were very clean and helpful.)

Anyway, what's the relevance about Cambodia?

Thanks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Hey, Zimph, you're the king of pics...

Got any good ones of Teresa?

(Or anyone else?)

In her prime, I am sure she was a hot little number.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by daimoni:
1. Well, you've come to the wrong website then.

Agreed.

2. Seriously. Stop obsessing about 'Americans' and realize that bad discussions originate and are conducted all over the globe.

I think she realizes that as well as any of us, daimoni. It's just that the American election is the one being talked about all over the globe right now.

[Cody Dawg]

That's not a half-bad picture.

I think that if she was softer-spoken and not on record for being tough and saying tough things then she could be an asset to Kerry.

It's just when she starts talking and taking a strong stance (which isn't necessarily wrong, BTW) that I cringe.

Good pic!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
That's not a half-bad picture.

I think that if she was softer-spoken and not on record for being tough and saying tough things then she could be an asset to Kerry.

It's just when she starts talking and taking a strong stance (which isn't necessarily wrong, BTW) that I cringe.

Good pic!

It's her abrasiveness that makes her a liability, not her toughness. I like "tough", direct, women... she's just a bitter, spoiled twit. Big difference.

[Zimphire]

I have problems with her political beliefs. Not the gal herself. Then again, I really don't KNOW her that well.

[Cody Dawg]

I don't think "tough" is a good sell when it comes to women, to be honest.

She has come out and:

1. Made Kerry sign a prenuptial (that's kind of emasculating)

2. Said she would "maim" Kerry if he had an affair

3. She reportedly told a reporter that people are "idiots" if they don't vote for her husband.

Not many people take kindly to being labeled an idiot.

She makes comments that are just inappropriate.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's her abrasiveness that makes her a liability, not her toughness. I like "tough", direct, women... she's just a bitter, spoiled twit. Big difference.

Evidence? Like Zimphire, I don't KNOW her. I haven't seen the abrasiveness side and am curious. Show us an example of "tough" and then example of "abrasive".

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I don't think "tough" is a good sell when it comes to women, to be honest.

She has come out and:

1. Made Kerry sign a prenuptial (that's kind of emasculating)

2. Said she would "maim" Kerry if he had an affair

3. She reportedly told a reporter that people are "idiots" if they don't vote for her husband.

Not many people take kindly to being labeled an idiot.

She makes comments that are just inappropriate.

So it is a double-standard.

[Cody Dawg]

Voyageur: Just read what she says. Telling people (publicly) that she would "maim" her husband if he had an affair reminds people of Lorena Bobbit...or Clara Harris, the dentist that ran over her husband in Texas.

Not a nice graphic, ya know?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by daimoni:
1. Well, you've come to the wrong website then.

2. Seriously. Stop obsessing about 'Americans' and realize that bad discussions originate and are conducted all over the globe.

I know. But my post was crafted for this forum

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
cambodia

right guard will not help you here!