President Bush and Iraq
Since taking office G.W.
This letter has not been edited.
This reckless tragic war has liberated 25 million people and as Al Qaeda has gone to bombing innocent Muslims, their popularity around the Muslim world has plummeted.
Since the left no longer stands up for liberty and freedom, it is up to the right to do these things now if they are also in our self interest.
Posted by jim on July 24, 2007 04:48 PMI wonder how long it will be before some soi-disant patriot comes back with something like "Well, at least he didn't DISGRACE the OFFICE of the PRESIDENCY by having SEX with an INTERN and then LYING about it to a JURY!"
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 24, 2007 06:37 PMA very good letter. Thank you for your thoughts.
Posted by on July 24, 2007 07:09 PMHey jim--
Can you tell me what side Al Qaeda is fighting for in Iraq?
Posted by A Simple Question on July 24, 2007 07:15 PMHey Jim, where do you get your information? It is Iraqis killing Iraqis in Iraq. Get your facts straight and cease the Bush BS SPIN!! And I fail to see that we liberated 25 million Iraqis. About 2 million have fled the country because of the violence and many more have had to move elsewhere within Iraq. Explain this if you can.
Posted by A True American on July 24, 2007 07:23 PMHey jim: have you, or anyone you know, ever seen an actual member of this so-called 'al qaeda'? Seriously, do they have a membership card, or a bank account in their name? What, if anything, exists to PROVE that THEY actually, and in fact, EXIST???? It is a mismash of people that the US government has put together, convinced the foolish is real and uses to their (the GOVERNMENT'S) advantage. But, in reality, there are no card-carrying members of any organization known as 'al qaeda'. Fact. The letter writer is correct. It is time to bring the troops home AND i will add: IMPEACH BUSH
Posted by sheila on July 24, 2007 09:00 PMHey jim: have you, or anyone you know, ever seen an actual member of this so-called 'al qaeda'? Seriously, do they have a membership card, or a bank account in their name? What, if anything, exists to PROVE that THEY actually, and in fact, EXIST???? It is a mismash of people that the US government has put together, convinced the foolish is real and uses to their (the GOVERNMENT'S) advantage. But, in reality, there are no card-carrying members of any organization known as 'al qaeda'. Fact. The letter writer is correct. It is time to bring the troops home AND i will add: IMPEACH BUSH
Posted by sheila on July 24, 2007 09:02 PMHey jim: have you, or anyone you know, ever seen an actual member of this so-called 'al qaeda'? Seriously, do they have a membership card, or a bank account in their name? What, if anything, exists to PROVE that THEY actually, and in fact, EXIST???? It is a mismash of people that the US government has put together, convinced the foolish is real and uses to their (the GOVERNMENT'S) advantage. But, in reality, there are no card-carrying members of any organization known as 'al qaeda'. Fact. The letter writer is correct. It is time to bring the troops home AND i will add: IMPEACH BUSH
Posted by sheila on July 24, 2007 09:02 PMSheila,
Al Qaeda actually does exist and their members are not difficult to identify.
They tell us every day who they are, what they have done and what they intend to do.
All you have to do is pay a bit of attention.
I understand this all seems unreal to you but if you remember the 3,000 Americans that were murdered on 9/11 without warning and without mercy for the sole reason that they were American, then you out to understand that they really do mean what they're telling us.
Posted by James Jones on July 24, 2007 09:37 PMJim is one of the sad few who still believes that, one, Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11 (unhook your brain from Fox News Jim) and, two, that there was any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded and occupied it. I think it is you who is not paying attention...being a Fox News zombie tends to do that to people.
Posted by Beavis on July 24, 2007 10:28 PMIn Iraq, we liberated the enemies of Sadam and his family. Those people can now live in peaceful harmony with their fellows who greatly outnumber them and are looking to kill as many as possible for, you guessed it revenge.
Eventually, the nation, or what is left of it will be unlivable for anyone.
My crystal ball tells me that the two million refugees will only be the beginning. When we leave, and we must leave someday, all hell will break loose between the various factions that are just waiting us out.
Look how long 9-11 was in the planning. These people have a different sense of time.
They are in no hurry to get even.
And the liberated Kurds in the North are sure that Turkey will invade them next. Why not, everything is in turmoil, that's a good time to invade.
Of course then we would have to fight the Turks for Iraq.
Same thing if Iran invades farther South.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 24, 2007 11:36 PMBush is a UCMJ felon. He is 40+ years AWOLee, deserter, and he through a conspiracy he got an illegal military discharge. Call Tancredo and Allard. I filed criminal UCMJ charges against Bush with these two draft-dodging commies and in violation of federal law, they didn't give my charges to the UDOJ, former DoD Secy. Rumsfeld, US Congress and US Court of Military Appeals. Allard and Tancredo should be impeached for their treasonous and traitor acts.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on July 25, 2007 06:35 AMJim Jones,
Al Qaeda is not the Taliban. Get your terrorists straight.
Also, there is absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Even Bush admits that now -- after he has been forced to admit it by the media.
Do you even know how to use an Internet search engine? If not, I suggest you either learn, or keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.
Here, read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html
Geesh, the tards on here ...
TreeHugger,
As you will find, as you go along here, the principal defenders/proponents/spokes-persons of/for Bush; anything and everything pro-Bush/ "conservative"/pro-"conservative"/etc.; as well as anything and everything ANTI-Democrat/liberal/progressive/humanist/secularist/simple-common-sense/etc., are NOT here to be criticized, disagreed with or dissented from, or otherwise held to any standards - of learning, scholarship, or ability to use and understand resources - other than their own.
They are here to "instruct" those of us who - as, "nasty thugs", as their principal complaint letter called us earlier on this website - dare to offer ideas, evidence, sources, or any other form of debate, discussion, or opinion, in what they see are the "errors of our ways". And, it is our bounden duty to accept their "instruction", rather than attempt to confuse them with anything such as facts; mundane reality having no real meaning, relevance, or admissibility, when our "instructors" are presenting their fantasies of how things "ought to be".
You're more than welcome to attempt to engage in a "debate" with any one - or all. But, in time, I believe you will find that exhausting; and, perhaps, learn to just ignore them, since there are many who come to this forum quite willing and eager to participate in the marketplace of ideas.
And then too, this is an opportunity for expression of opinions; including those of our "instructors" as to their mission to "instruct", and as to the "superior wisdom" of their "instructions".
"Tards"? Maybe. But, it does make this one of the most fun forums on the Internet.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 25, 2007 10:04 AMTree Hugger,
I have said nothing whatsoever about the Taliban so there is no basis for your claim that I have them confused with Al Qaeda. You just made that up.
You also made up the claim that Bush said Saddam was involved in 9/11.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18, 2003
(CBS)
Quote
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
President Bush.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq, and a lot of other countries, as they still are. But Bush never said they were involved with the 9/11 attacks.
If you want me to read something then provide the text. For instance, if you have a quote from Bush linking Saddam to 9/11 then adduce it.
You are entitled to you own opinion but not to attribute false statements that create your own history.
So far you are 0-2.
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 10:18 AMJames - The only time I ever hear 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence is from left.
And on this forum they spread that fake argument a lot.
The question is why?
Posted by KW on July 25, 2007 10:57 AMKW, check out Cheney on Meet the Press. He said there was evidence that Saddam was involved with 9/11 even though he knew it wasn't true.
Posted by riptide on July 25, 2007 11:11 AMKW said to hilarious effect:
"The only time I ever hear 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence is from left."
Heheh. Funny stuff K-Dub.
Posted by Charles B on July 25, 2007 11:11 AMI agree with you Jim and those super liberal people that are so hateful especially if you don't agree with their views are wrong. Sure is too bad that the liberals aren't paying attention to Europe and how the people are now going conservative because the liberals have almost destroyed Europe. These liberals in the blogs on the RMN are so hateful and they are just anti American. The US was just as hated when our president was Clinton but the crazy liberals just spout facts that fit their agenda only. They forget we were being attacked long before George W. Bush.
There are still a lot of we conservatives that love our country out there thank God or Bush wouldn't have been voted in again but the liberals still say the "Majority" of American's agree with them. That is total hooey!!!!!
Posted by on July 25, 2007 12:05 PMI laugh everytime you guys say it too CB.
Posted by KW on July 25, 2007 12:36 PMKW,
I don't recall every reading here anyone who supports the war in Iraq claiming that Saddam was a part of the 9/11 attacks. It may have happened (there are a lot of posts here I don't see) but most commonly the reference comes ffrom the leftist falsley asserting that Bush made the connection This particular thread is typical.
Why? Is a great question. The left's aversion to reality on domestic issues is obvious, e.g. it is not possible to simultaneously acknowldege the failure of Marxism and argue for nationalizing health care.
But on foreign policy - Why is it that there is no place in the Democrat Party for Joe Lieberman? Why can't the left acknowledge the reality of the terrorist threat and make some effort to deal with it?
Part of the answer has to do with Democrat leadership. None of the would-be commander's in chief want to address the question of what happens if we surrender Iraq to its fate. They seem to see greater gain in playing politics with the war.
There is not much that can be said about that other than the abdication of responsible statesmanship for the sake of political power is short-sighted and damages the fabric of the nation.
This political struggle is analagous to the war on terror in this respect: We are not required to understand them, our only obligation is to secure their defeat - politically of course in this case.
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 01:00 PMriptide
"He (Cheney) said there was evidence that Saddam was involved with 9/11 even though he knew it wasn't true."
First, no he didn't. Here is the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
Second, you don't know what Cheney knows to be true and it's no good pretending you do.
Yes, 'Brando,' you're right, Bush didn't 'disgrace the office' by having sex with an intern. Curious George's disgrace involved lying the nation into a war and resulting in the deaths of 100s of thousands of people. By the way, did you realize we can still impeach him after he leaves office? Unfortunately, we'll have to wait till he leaves office to find paperwork attesting to his administration's illicit behaviors.
Hopefully though, with him out of office, people with first hand knowledge of his shenanigans will feel more comfortable about coming forward. But, that's OK 'Brando,' history will do justice by this nation -Bush will not get away with his Iraqi fiasco. Probably the best thing about it is that, because of everything Georgey Boy has pulled on this nation, there will never be another Bush elected President of these United States... :o)))))
Posted by Tazmin on July 25, 2007 01:29 PMMaybe we are approaching this problem from the wrong end.
Someone link a Bush speech, pre invasion of Iraq, and count the number of references to 9-11.
Since he was ginning us up to support his invasion and using the unspoken but deliberate connection to Sadam and anything about 9-11, there should be at least 4 or 5 mentions of 9-11 and since he was talking about Iraq and Sadam, why would those references even be in the speech?
Maybe JJ is right and all of us who think we heard these speeches are wrong.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 25, 2007 01:43 PMJames Jones,
See story below.
You & KW are part of the desperate last bastion of Bush/Cheney apologists. You're either very dense or supremely disingenuous.
Only a year and a half before this ham-handed cabal of crooks and gangsters is gone - thank God. The lying deceitful attorney general who even disgusts Republicans now is just a typical Bush operative.
_______________________________
Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post
Monday 29 September 2003
In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation.
The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.
Not Cheney, who was the administration's most vociferous advocate for going to war with Iraq. He brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.
When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. "Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in," said one official involved in putting together the speech.
Posted by drew on July 25, 2007 01:48 PMClass is back in session.James I admire your efforts the educate the Democrats{cowards and US haters} but you must remember they have a very low moral standard so they lie about everything.You can never counter their lies because they will just make more up.As we learned from our last class the Democrats hate the US and want the enemy to win or they are cowards.This semester we will look at some of the people posting on this page and determine which category they fall in.We will also look into another part of the Democrat party not mentioned before,The Useful Idiot
Posted by An American on July 25, 2007 01:49 PM"Class is back in session" - that's rich, coming from un-American who from the sounds of things couldn't even graduate from traffic school. Go back to your double wide you idiot - You, Bush & KW combined don't have the IQ of a bowl of walnuts.
Posted by drew on July 25, 2007 01:59 PMdrew,
Thank you for the transcript. I think you will have to admit there is a distinction between
"He said there was evidence that Saddam was involved with 9/11 even though he knew it wasn't true."
per riptide and
"Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001"
per the Post report
and
"The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."
Whis is what Cheney actually told Russert.
The more intersting point though is the question KW asked -
Why?
An American,
I have not set myself the task of educating Democrats - at least not the Democrats that routinely post here. They will in all likelihood continue to believe what they want to believe.
All I intend to do is counter the misinformation spread here with the truth. These are important issues and clarity is our best weapon.
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 02:08 PMHere is one quote from Bush linking Iraq and 9-11 and a link to the White House news release it is pulled from. Also an additional link with other links from it quoting Bush and Cheney.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704300012
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html
“the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
Posted by conservative media on July 25, 2007 02:16 PMJJ,
Well he keeps suggesting it - and the headline reads:
Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney. Instead of coming out & categorically saying that there's no connection , he keeps suggesting connections - which is clear from both your transcript & my article.
And are you seriously asking "why" he was linking Iraq and 911? I'd think it was clear but here goes:
Bush intended to invade Iraq from the very start (way before 911) - look up "Downing Street Memo" - which he obviously did.
Then there were, of course, questions as to why Bush let Osama slip away and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with 911. So of course he had to make the Iraq-911 connection in order to legitimize the war. Especially after the "weapons of mass destruction" - his main pretext for the war -mysteriously vanished. Which is why he still harps on about Al Qaeda in Iraq - even though that organization never existed before the US entered Iraq.
hope that answers your question.
Posted by drew on July 25, 2007 02:19 PMJames Jones,
Educate yourself:
1. In your first post at 9:37 am on July 24, you mentioned Al Qaeda -- then you began talking about 9/11 -- strongly implying that it was Al Qaeda -- not the Taliban who were behind the 9/11 attacks.
Either you are trying to be intentionally misleading here or you are woefully uninformed. Or it could be that you just don't know how to write a cogent sentence that stays on topic.
2. Bush DID claim a Saddam connection to 911 -- before he got SCHOOLED, just like you're about to be.
Source (Read it and weep): http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/priraqclaimfact1029.htm
Now, I'm sure that none of this is going to make much difference to you anyway, since you are obviously so ridiculously biased against anything that anyone says that isn't gushing support for your "glorious leader" George W. But that doesn't change the fact that I am right.
Sorry to inform you, but dissent is NOT treason -- it is far more patriotic than just blindly following the clueless.
Perhaps you and your People's Temple followers should have some "special" Kool Aid. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm)
drew,
Bush and his adminstration have said many times that there were connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They have also said repeatedly that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.
No one can say catagorically what the connection is and no one has tried. That's what Cheney meant when he said,
"We just don't know." That statement seems to me pretty clear.
The Why? question is not why would Bush lie it is why do you guys keep insisting that the administration convinced the American people that Saddam was in on 9/11 when it is clear from the record that they told the truth about what they know all along? Where they mistaken about WMD? That's the way it looks. So what?
What exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish?
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 03:09 PMTRee Hugger,
I did not imply that Al Qaeda executed the attack on 9/11. I asserted the fact.
The Taliban is a theocratic poltical party who ruled Afghanistan and played host to Al Qaeda while they planned and implemented the 9/11 attack.
We subsequently invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban government as required to strike Al Qaeda.
Your statement that it was the Taliban, and not Al Qeada, behind the 9/11 attack is nonsensical.
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 03:20 PMdrew -
1) How does pointing out the lack of truth in someones post here make me a Bush apologists?
It doesn't. You simply can't help yourself. You incessantly fell the need to label everyone who doesn't agree with you (or debunks your myths) an extremest.
I'll point out fallacy whether it's from the right OR the left.
2) Your post (without a link) is from a WaPo OPINION column. Hardly the best place for facts. Especially when the author(s) are trying to sell papers above being factual.
The bottom line is neither Bush nor Cheney have ever stated, let alone implied that Saddam was behind 9/11.
Just more lies in the attempt to claim Bush lied and clear the dems of any responsibilty for voting to invade Iraq.
Posted by KW on July 25, 2007 03:26 PMThat you can read a whole article of innuendo from Cheney offering various scenarios where 911 and Saddam are connected - and then offer Cheney's out of context "we don't know" as a conclusion is just pathetic. Why does the headline say: Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney? Are they just sucking this out of their thumbs?
And no one "repeatedly said that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11?" They repeated it so many times that even today 50% of Americans think there is an iraq-911 connection. The only time I heard Bush definitively say there is no connection is when Kerry challenged him at the debate and caught him in his lie.
"What exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish?'
I'm showing deniers like you that this administration lied about WMDs and when that fell flat they lied about an Iraq-911 connection.
Although lies from this crowd shouldn't be newsworthy. What should draw headlines is when someone somewhere in this corrupt regime actually comes out and tells the truth sometime. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by drew on July 25, 2007 03:29 PMdrew,
How did Bush learn prior to the invasion that Saddam had no WMD?
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 03:47 PM"Why does the headline say: Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney? Are they just sucking this out of their thumbs?"
Yes. It's an OPINION piece. They can title it whatever they want. And usually use an eye grabbing title to suck people in.
Do you know how often the news media have tried to slant this? Or how many watch the MSM thinking the news they get is 100% unbiased?
I'm actually surprised only 50% of Americans believe it with all the Bush hatred in the media ever since he beat Gore.
Did it ever occur to anybody that the reason so many people hate bush is because he's just a terrible person?
Posted by Larry on July 25, 2007 04:26 PMOn the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
Quote from Cheney on MTP that you guys left out. What more do you want KW, JJ
See the above link for more.
Posted by conservative media on July 25, 2007 05:03 PMCM - This gets old. Read the entire text from that interview (like I said earlier). What you posted is only Cheney's summary of about 6 paragraphs he spoke prior to his recap.
He was talking "terrorism" in general as a worldly problem... But you won't know that if you only read whats posted at mediamatters.
Aren't you one of the very people who hate to see things taken out of context like with the boulder controversy?
Read the entire text of the interview. You'll be enlightened.
Posted by KW on July 25, 2007 05:08 PMKW
I did read it and it's pretty clear to me but i'm seeing what I believe and you're seeing what you believe.
The other link above is from the WH, not MM.
Posted by conservative media on July 25, 2007 05:16 PMConservative Media,
I can only keep repeating
Bush and his adminstration have said many times that there were connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They have also said repeatedly that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.
No one can say catagorically what the connection is and no one has tried. That's what Cheney meant when he said,
"We just don't know." That statement seems to me pretty clear.
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 03:09 PM
I copied the full context of Cheney's remarks at 1.23 pm in which you will see that the comment is not taken out of context but was a conclusion to the previous comments.
Everone acknowledges there was some link. There is no point in your repeating the fact.
If you want to demonstrate that Bush, or someone else in the administration, lied about Saddam's involvement in 9/11, then you have to do more than establish that they said there was a link.
What exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish with all this?
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 05:19 PMJJ
i never said he lied. i'm merely showing (trying) to prove that they did say there was a link...and they did. That's all.
What are you trying to accomplish?
Posted by conservative media on July 25, 2007 05:46 PM"Where they mistaken about WMD? That's the way it looks. So what?"
So hundreds of thousands are dead needlessly, including tens of thousands of Americans killed or wounded. So What?
You are a callous bastard eh Jimmy?
"How did Bush learn prior to the invasion that Saddam had no WMD?"
Because the weapons inspectors had found none?
Idiot.
Posted by Charles B on July 25, 2007 07:22 PMEventually, if we behave really really well over the next couple of generations, God might forgive Americans of either supporting the Iraq war or not sufficiently opposing it when we had a chance to avoid it.
And while we are waiting for this day to come, if we once more decide to elect competent, honest, effective leaders, America might dig ourselves out of the complete mess we've made of our country over the past six years.
Re: misleading statements connecting Iraq and al Qaeda...come on now folks, live in the now! Let by-gones be by-gones...allow the GOP deadenders to save face if needed and pretend it never happened..America is in a heap of trouble, let's not waste our energy on trying to convince the delusional about the subtlies of reality.
Posted by on July 25, 2007 08:09 PMto Tree hugger ad Conservative media. Went to all your links and read what I have been trying to say.
The Bush administration always put Sadam and 9-11 together in their speeches. Then covered their butts by saying, "there is no evidence Sadam had anything to do with 9-11"
If you carefully read Cheney's interview, he uses the term "we have no evidence" or in other speeches "we can not prove".
I could say "we have no evidence JJ sells drugs. We can not prove he sells drugs. We must protect our children from drug dealers. We must attack JJ.
I swear he is not seeing this because his whole Republican/Conservative world view would collapse if he did.
Thanks for the links especially those of Bushes speeches before invasion of Iraq.
I knew I had heard what I thought I heard.
I`m not senile yet.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 25, 2007 09:21 PMCharles B,
You posted
"How did Bush learn prior to the invasion that Saddam had no WMD?"
Because the weapons inspectors had found none?
Idiot.
Posted by Charles B on July 25, 2007 07:22 PM
If your question is meant to be an answer, that opens up a whole host of questions. Let's being with this one;
If Bush learned that Saddam had no WMD from the Inpsectors then the whole world knew Saddam had no WMD prior to the invasion.
If that's true, then why did Congress authorize the invasion?
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 10:27 PM"Did it ever occur to anybody that the reason so many people hate bush is because he's just a terrible person?"
Absolutely. He was a revolting sack of crap before he ever bought the nomination, and he's only gotten worse. He is hated because he is a vile, murderous, cowardly, dishonest, evil pile of dung who will improve the world when he leaves.
Posted by on July 25, 2007 10:43 PMI don`t think Bush cared what as in Iraq, he was going in no matter what.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 26, 2007 03:32 AMConservative Media
This is interesting:
I did read it and it's pretty clear to me but i'm seeing what I believe and you're seeing what you believe.
conservative media on July 25, 2007 05:16 PM
and
i never said he lied. i'm merely showing (trying) to prove that they did say there was a link...and they did. That's all.
What are you trying to accomplish?
Posted by conservative media on July 25, 2007 05:46 PM
So what exactly is it that KW, or I, believe that is different from what you believe?
My answer to your question is at 2.08 pm. I guess you missed it. Where's your answer to mine?
Posted by James Jones on July 26, 2007 07:29 AMJJ asked:
"If Bush learned that Saddam had no WMD from the Inpsectors then the whole world knew Saddam had no WMD prior to the invasion.
If that's true, then why did Congress authorize the invasion?"
Because their motivations were political and emotional and not based on logic or an understanding of the region or it's people. It's worth noting that over half of the Democrats in the House voted against it, but I'm the last person you'll catch defending those who abdicated their authority to give Bush carte blanch.
You can't get around the fact that Bush ultimately ordered the attack of Iraq. There's a difference between investing someone with authority to do "A" with the hope that it could be used as diplomatic leverage, and that person actually doing "A" (despite the fact that the leverage was working. For example, the weapons inspectors were being allowed to do their work).
Posted by Charles B on July 26, 2007 07:40 AMAh yes, I remember my 2 tour of duties in’Nam too, fighting side by Side with Bush, Cheney and Rummy. Good old Repukicans that served their country not like them darn liberal Democrats, y’know medal winners like Kerry and such. Ooops, figting with George and the boys must have happened when I was toking on some good weed, cuz those Guts &Glory guys were all serving their country back in the states, sipping cool ones in the Officers clubs and getting DUIs. Yep as amny of them served in Nam as their kids are bnnow serving in Iraq ( I believe that would be ZERO prodigy in Iraq).
Posted by jimd4x4 on July 26, 2007 08:53 AMAh yes, I remember my 2 tour of duties in’Nam too, fighting side by Side with Bush, Cheney and Rummy. Good old Repukicans that served their country not like them darn liberal Democrats, y’know medal winners like Kerry and such. Ooops, figting with George and the boys must have happened when I was toking on some good weed, cuz those Guts &Glory guys were all serving their country back in the states, sipping cool ones in the Officers clubs and getting DUIs. Yep as many of them served in Nam as their kids are bnnow serving in Iraq ( I believe that would be ZERO prodigy in Iraq).
Posted by jimd4x4 on July 26, 2007 08:54 AMAh yes, I remember my 2 tour of duties in’Nam too, fighting side by Side with Bush, Cheney and Rummy. Good old Repukicans that served their country not like them darn liberal Democrats, y’know medal winners like Kerry and such. Ooops, figting with George and the boys must have happened when I was toking on some good weed, cuz those Guts &Glory guys were all serving their country back in the states, sipping cool ones in the Officers clubs and getting DUIs. Yep as many of them served in Nam as their kids are bnnow serving in Iraq ( I believe that would be ZERO prodigy in Iraq).
Posted by jimd4x4 on July 26, 2007 08:54 AMCharles B,
Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and accepts the full responsibility for that decision. Congress authorized Bush to make the decision and bears full responsiblity for that decision.
But the bottom line is that we are in Iraq because of Bush's decision to invade.
If I read you correctly -
Your view of the history is that the weapons inspectors confirmed that Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions requiring he disarm his WMD prior to the invasion.
The reasons you listed for congressional authorization,
"Because their motivations were political and emotional and not based on logic or an understanding of the region or it's people."
did not inlcude Bush lied about WMD. That would make sense of the inpsectors had reported earlier that Saddam had destroyed the weapons per the UN requirements.
The accusation has been in this thread that we invaded Iraq because Bush lied, not Bush was mistaken, about WMD.
Based on what you have posted, it does not appear to be your view that we are in Iraq becuase Bush lied about the WMD.
Is that true?
Posted by James Jones on July 26, 2007 09:41 AMKW said:
""Why does the headline say: Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney? Are they just sucking this out of their thumbs?"
Yes. It's an OPINION piece. They can title it whatever they want. And usually use an eye grabbing title to suck people in."
Here's a newsflash KW - the piece is a NEWS PIECE, not an OPINION PIECE. An opinion piece would not have the byline of 2 journalists on it.
Opening your mouth to change feet again, KW?
Posted by drew on July 26, 2007 09:56 AMDrew
Here's part of what you posted.
That you can read a whole article of innuendo from Cheney offering various scenarios where 911 and Saddam are connected - and then offer Cheney's out of context "we don't know" as a conclusion is just pathetic. Why does the headline say: Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney? Are they just sucking this out of their thumbs?
"What exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish?' {my question}
I'm showing deniers like you that this administration lied about WMDs and when that fell flat they lied about an Iraq-911 connection.
Posted by drew on July 25, 2007 03:29 PM
Your responses are all instructive.
The "we don't know" comment was clearly not out of context - it was a conclusion to the foregoing remarks.
When you read a story that is not accurately described by the headline you believe not the story but the headline because you want to belive the headline not the story.
That demonstrates that you will believe what you want to believe irrespective of the evidence. That's OK with me.
Your tautological response to "what are you trying to accomplish" demonstrates that you don't exactly know what it is you're trying to accomplish.
That's OK too - I'm just looking for clarity.
You have not however responed to
drew,
How did Bush learn prior to the invasion that Saddam had no WMD?
Posted by James Jones on July 25, 2007 03:47 PM
As Charles B did above.
I am interested in your response to that question.
JJ
"What exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish?'
I'm showing deniers like you that this administration lied about WMDs and when that fell flat they lied about an Iraq-911 connection.
How's that a tautology? - If you are unable to understand something that simple - then one has of necessity to resort to trying to repeat it in a more understandable way - as you would with a child. That doesn't seem to help, though, since you & KW will defend this regime until the bitter end, regardless of what they do.
And you said: "The "we don't know" comment was clearly not out of context - it was a conclusion to the foregoing remarks."
OK - let me repeat myself again: when the whole article suggests ways that Iraq and Al Qaeda are connected & the he throws in "we don't know" - that's not a conclusion, that's a red herring.
I like Sharon's remark: "I could say "we have no evidence JJ sells drugs. We can not prove he sells drugs. We must protect our children from drug dealers. We must attack JJ.
You guys are so desperate to cling onto your ideology that you'll ignore all the evidence & cherry pick one phrase - out of context - to comfort yourselves - must be sad.
"How did Bush learn prior to the invasion that Saddam had no WMD?"
OK: (1) To quote Charles B-weapons inspectors were able to turn up nothing
(2) The fact that Bush had Colin Powell lie to the UN about WMDs suggests that he knew there was nothing - this was just a pretext to fool the world into letting him go to war.
(3) The fact that he had to blatantly lie about yellowcake from Niger (in the state of the Union no less) suggests that the whole WMD scenario was fabricated. And when Joe Wilson revealed it as a lie, the smear campaign got into high gear.
(4)The "Downing Street Memo" - that shows that Bush was determined to invade Iraq way before 911 - suggests that the WMD crap was all a ruse.
That answer your question?
Bush wanted to swagger around as the "war president" -in his flight suit - probably to try & make up for his shame at being a Vietnam chickenhawk - just like Cheney & the rest who are so brave when they're sending other people's kids off to the danger zone.
Drew,
It does answer my question. you are self-deluded.
I will help you with the tautology issue.
When you explain that you are telling us that Bush lied so that we will know that Bush lied - that is a tautology.
Posted by James Jones on July 26, 2007 11:46 AMThanks JJ,
I know what a tautology is (but thanks for the grammar lesson) - but you obviously can't understand plain English-or you are extremely bad at basic comprehension - so - sigh- let me try again, very s-l-o-w-l-y this time:
1) The administration lied about WMD to get us into a war that Bush was determined to pursue
2) When there were no WMDs, they lied about an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Why? So that they could imply that there was a connection between 911 and Saddam - this to try to explain away the fact that instead of pursuing our real attackers after 911 (you know, Bin Laden & friends) they attacked a third country that had nothing to do with 911. In other words, JJ, to imply that Saddam plotted with and gave material support to the 911 attackers (Al Qaeda).
Why? So that they can come up with some sort of "noble cause" for the Iraq debacle, so that the parents of tens of thousands of dead and injured American soldiers can be conned into believing that this senseless carnage actually achieved something.
That non-tautological enough for you? I doubt it, but I gave it my best shot.
Posted by drew on July 26, 2007 12:07 PMDrew shows the real soul of the liberal Democrat party when he tells me to go back to my "double wide". Today we are going to examine a new area of the Democrat party.The liberals claim that they care about the poor,the blacks,the soldiers but the reality is they have nothing but distain for these groups.If Drew and other Democrats were to tell the truth this is what they would say "you the,poor, go back to your "double wides "until it is time to vote Democrat",you"N's go back to your "double wides" until it is time to vote Democrat." Here is what they would tell our brave soldiers who want to fight for us"go back to your "double wides" you are too stupid to know what you are doing."This is the real Democrat party and I want to thank Drew for being honest once in his life.It is a giant step for a liberal.
Posted by An American on July 26, 2007 12:59 PMdrew,
Way back, near the beginning of this line, I told "TreeHugger" what to expect from the principal Bush defenders, who would be predominant on this line of postings. In some ways, it is amazing how much of a mirror image they give of the one they are defending, as they instruct us in what we are supposed to think - today - about things.
You can put it into the first person form, as you go along; but the model is fairly simple. It is the old:
"That" wasn't said. But, if "that" were said, it wasn't really meant. It really means "this" (today). But you can never prove "that" was said to begin with. So, "this" today means "that". But "that" doesn't mean "this", because "that" wasn't said. "this" way. And "this" wasn't said "that" way.
Throw in some irrelevant criticism about use of a word - or some equally irrelevant "instruction" on what a word is "supposed to mean"; and/or a complete mis-statement/mis-quote of what was said in reply along the line; a little change of subject in mid-argument, coupled with another emphasis on "this" meaning "that', even though "that" wasn't said to begin with, neither was "this"; and . . . so goes the "instruction" in defense of Bush.
I do have to admire your taking it on, and your sticking with it as long as you have. I would welcome you to the club; but I really don't know what the name for it is today. We've been everything from the 3 Stooges all the way to Progressive Secularists - with "liberal lefties", even "traitors", thrown in along the way - and I ain't got a T-shirt for it yet. But, as you have learned, by now: "That" wasn't said. But if "that "were said it really meant . . . . !
Just goes to show how much fun this open forum can be.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 01:01 PMdrew,
Way back, near the beginning of this line, I told "TreeHugger" what to expect from the principal Bush defenders, who would be predominant on this line of postings. In some ways, it is amazing how much of a mirror image they give of the one they are defending, as they instruct us in what we are supposed to think - today - about things.
You can put it into the first person form, as you go along; but the model is fairly simple. It is the old:
"That" wasn't said. But, if "that" were said, it wasn't really meant. It really means "this" (today). But you can never prove "that" was said to begin with. So, "this" today means "that". But "that" doesn't mean "this", because "that" wasn't said. "this" way. And "this" wasn't said "that" way.
Throw in some irrelevant criticism about use of a word - or some equally irrelevant "instruction" on what a word is "supposed to mean"; and/or a complete mis-statement/mis-quote of what was said in reply along the line; a little change of subject in mid-argument, coupled with another emphasis on "this" meaning "that', even though "that" wasn't said to begin with, neither was "this"; and . . . so goes the "instruction" in defense of Bush.
I do have to admire your taking it on, and your sticking with it as long as you have. I would welcome you to the club; but I really don't know what the name for it is today. We've been everything from the 3 Stooges all the way to Progressive Secularists - with "liberal lefties", even "traitors", thrown in along the way - and I ain't got a T-shirt for it yet. But, as you have learned, by now: "That" wasn't said. But if "that "were said it really meant . . . . !
Just goes to show how much fun this open forum can be.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 01:01 PMSorry. Didn't intend a double posting. Computer seems to have the little indicator line stick about 1/2 way in the box; and when I try to go back, it apparently triggers a second impulse to the "Post". My apologies.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 01:07 PMAn American - Great capture of personality there. I'm sure though drew will have a lame excuse for his hate filled postings and try to justify them.
A very strange world they live in.
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 01:14 PMOld Grouch, JJ really did have me rooting around in the presidential speeches though. If I for one moment doubted what I heard I have now read the same words.
Originally I named John II and James Jones as Batman and Robin and JJ wanted to be Batman, but I told him that was taken by JohnII.
I now think that JJ should be Batman and we will give him a new little sidekick who thinks he is classy and hangs (pun intended) on his every word: An American.
These two can run around fighting the Democrat cowards and those who hate US. As AA often says.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 26, 2007 01:37 PM-sob-sob : Un-American is getting all emotional and distraught because I told him to "go back to his double wide" -sob-. And then KW put the boot in and called me "Hate filled" -sob-. Who knew wingnuts were so sensitive?-sob-.
This from someone (Un American) who just called me a "coward, US Hater, liar, Useful Idiot with no moral standards. He's just so delicate-sob- and HATES being called names!
Old Grouch - that's our club for the day, " The yellow, coward, US Hating, blame-America First, Al Qaeda loving, lying, moral standard-less, surrender monkeys." Got a nice ring to it!
Posted by drew on July 26, 2007 03:08 PMdrew,
It's always unseemly to sob in public - even more so when you're pretending.
You are correct though , Surrender Monkeys is apt.
Posted by James Jones on July 26, 2007 04:20 PMWould you rather be a surrender monkey or a draft dodger?
Posted by Larry on July 26, 2007 04:25 PMI'm so happy you like that one that I stopped sobbing, JJ. if I think of any other names I'll be sure & let you know - but I know you've got a comprehensive list yourself!
See - I don't care about name calling - tell your buddies Un-American & KW not to be so thin skinned. Cheesh, what's wrong with a double-wide anyway?
Posted by drew on July 26, 2007 04:28 PMJJ tried to use logic and came up with this:
"Based on what you have posted, it does not appear to be your view that we are in Iraq becuase Bush lied about the WMD.
Is that true?"
No.
Posted by Charles B on July 26, 2007 04:35 PMNot thin skinned drew. An American just captured your personality to a tee.
Why do you use being poor when hurling your insults? Could it be you really don't care about others less fortunate than you? As you claim to?
More lib double speak?
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 04:51 PMHi Sharon,
Do you think we could get all today's name on a T-shirt? I'll admit I have had to go over to the "portly" section at the tailor shop; but I'm not quite up to having Omar the Tentmaker provide yet.
Making Jonesy Batman: That might be a good promotion at that. And AA is certainly juvenile enough for a side-kick.
Anyway, good to see you on line. I'm about off to see about computer that doesn't want to "register" - or whatever - when the mouse clicks.
Just by the way, I let Danny Demon post some of my doggerel verse on another site. Feel free to do with it as someone you know might happen to get a laugh.
Charles B,
It still doesn't quite come up to the one about chipmunks and the Moonlight Sonata; but . . . D+ for effort, maybe? Even a C-, since he at least constructed an English sentence properly?
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 04:53 PMMe "hurling insults" - that's rich coming from you, KW. And the little "double-wide" jibe that you get all teary-eyed about KW - refers to a mindset, not economic circumstance. IE "Trailer park trash" who curse & swear and call names (like Un-American) rather than have a discussion. Did you refer to Un-American's little tirade that I responded to? No, I thought not. You guys like to dish it out but you can't take it can you? So for your enjoyment here the literary classic is again:
Class is back in session.James I admire your efforts the educate the Democrats{cowards and US haters} but you must remember they have a very low moral standard so they lie about everything.You can never counter their lies because they will just make more up.As we learned from our last class the Democrats hate the US and want the enemy to win or they are cowards.This semester we will look at some of the people posting on this page and determine which category they fall in.We will also look into another part of the Democrat party not mentioned before,The Useful Idiot
Posted by An American on July 25, 2007 01:49 PM
Posted by drew on July 26, 2007 05:02 PMOh, and another thing, KW:
You said:
"Why do you use being poor when hurling your insults? Could it be you really don't care about others less fortunate than you? As you claim to?"
That's really funny coming from someone who not that long ago was mocking people without health insurance on this site. Please spare me your nauseating self-righteousness, it makes me want to gag. You guys are unbelievable.
Posted by drew on July 26, 2007 05:12 PMI don`t think I insulted anyone on this thread. Not enough for a t-shirt slogan.
Drew and others, well that tears it, the t-shirt business is back to "Secular Progressives."
Democrat cowards who hate US is to confusing. Every body will be asking us who "us" is and why the Democrats hate us.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 26, 2007 08:36 PMCharles B,
Well "No" is certainly cryptic if not particularly illuminating.
So you believe
A) Bush knew that Saddam did not have any WMD because that is what the UN weapon inspectors reported and
B) The Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq even though they too knew the inspectors had confirmed that Saddma was in compliance with the UN resolutions.
So the events as they exist in the imagination of Charles are:
The UN inpsectors confirmed that Saddam had disarmed. Bush lied and said "No he hasn't." The Democrats in Congress took Bush's word over the inspectors only to subsequently learn that the inspectors were telling the truth.
Ergo, the US attacked Iraq because Bush lied.
That is truely remarkably. You powers of self-deception are extraordinary. Well maybe not so extraordinary for the posters on this page who are consumed with hatred.
I do have one fact you should consider - The inspectors never confirmed that Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions.
Posted by James Jones on July 27, 2007 06:08 AMAh!
Presto! Digito! Expelliarmus! Hocusey Pokusey! We have a new "fact" to consider.
Well . . . . Sort of, anyway. Quite off the topic, as usual. And by no means a direct rebuttal to the previously offered position. Indeed, not even a rebuttal to the questions the magician asks preliminarily. But never mind that. Very few, if any, new "facts" ever are, when they pop out of the hat.
But, just for funzies, let's take the actual questions asked:
A) Bush knew . . .etc.
To the first 2 words: YES! HE DID! Bush definitely knew that there were no WMD in Iraq. That has been thoroughly documented and proven several times, often as coming from his own "intelligence" sources; and had nothing to do with anything UN weapons inspectors reported.
The phrases, "UN weapon inspectors reported", and "inspectors had confirmed" were not a part of the original position presented; and are totally non sequitur.
B) Congress authorized . . . etc.
A non sequitur; a straw man; a trick question; and irrelevant.
Congress did authorize action on the basis of the information given them by Bush. Some of this "information" was outright lies. Again, the phrases quoted above were not part of the original position; and are totally non sequitur
Ergo, the US attacked . . . etc.
DEFINITELY YES! As has been documented repeatedly.
New "fact": The inspectors never confirmed . . . etc.
They were not given time. The US attacked before they had finished their work, and made their report. That there was, ultimately, a report confirming the fact that there were NO WMD in Iraq goes to the point of Bush's lies in the first place. The phrase, "complied with the UN resolutions" is irrelevant, as the matter of WMD was the principal argument for invasion; and other UN resolutions were not considered.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 11:20 AMOld Grouch,
The question I have asked is how did Bush know that Saddam had no WMD.
Your claim
"Bush definitely knew that there were no WMD in Iraq. That has been thoroughly documented and proven several times, often as coming from his own "intelligence" sources; and had nothing to do with anything UN weapons inspectors reported."
I know you accept it unquestioninly but nonetheless, it simply is not true.
There have been two independent studies conducted by Robb-Silberman and a joint committee of Congress to determine if intelligence reports had been tampered with and found they were not.
The only plausible response to the question offered came from Charles B who told us that the weapons inspectors told him so.
Now you have, in your own inimitable, clumsy way converted the weapons inpectors told him so to -
"The US attacked before they had finished their work, and made their report. "
The UN inpsectors were not there playing "see if you can find the WMD." They were there to confirm Saddam's compliance with the UN resolutions. They never did.
The plain truth is that while mistakes were made, there is no evidence that Bush, or anyone else, thought that Saddam had no WMD prior to invasion.
No one - not the CIA, the UN, France, Russia or even the Congressmen who were opposed to the invasion at the time or who are opposed to it now, has ever said that Saddam had conformed to the UN resolutions prior to the invasion.
The reason they don't make the claim that Bush lied is that there is no evidence.
So they leave it to you to keep the idiotic mantra that Bush lied alive with your hopeless inventions and fantastic delusions.
Useful idiots is also apt.
Drew needs tutoring.Drew it is not that I am thin skined.It is just that you have shown how you [liberal Democrats] really think of the poor.You said go back to your "double Wide" you "idiot" which shows that you think poor people that live in "double wides" are "idiots.You showed us how you feel about the poor now let us know how you [Democrats] really feel about black people and Hispanics.
Posted by An American on July 27, 2007 12:19 PMDrew needs tutoring.Drew it is not that I am thin skined.It is just that you have shown how you [liberal Democrats] really think of the poor.You said go back to your "double Wide" you "idiot" which shows that you think poor people that live in "double wides" are "idiots.You showed us how you feel about the poor now let us know how you [Democrats] really feel about black people and Hispanics.
Posted by An American on July 27, 2007 12:20 PMDrew needs tutoring.Drew it is not that I am thin skinned.It is just that you have shown how you [liberal Democrats] really think of the poor.You said go back to your "double Wide" you "idiot" which shows that you think poor people that live in "double wides" are "idiots.You showed us how you feel about the poor now let us know how you [Democrats] really feel about black people and Hispanics.
Posted by An American on July 27, 2007 12:21 PMDrew you attacked the poor in your posting when you used the words"double wide" and "idiot".In my posting I am making a case that Democrats fall into certain categories.I think I have more than proven my point.I have not degraded the poor as you have.I am just showing why Democrats back the issues that they do.I think your attack on the poor shows that you are really something different than what you want to project.That is what I am uncovering.What you guys really are.,Cowards and US haters.
Posted by An American on July 27, 2007 12:38 PMOn another posting a liberal Democrat,I think it was Old Grouch, said to a conservative that he must be a "janitor" This is another example of how the really think of the poor and working class.The conservative had said he would be in Denver doing some work and the liberal, I think Old Grouch, said doing what working with the janitorial crew.If you guys are not what you say you are then what are you Democrats?
Posted by An American on July 27, 2007 12:50 PMHey Un-American,
A new show is coming to town soon - "The Great American Trailer Park Musical." Maybe you & KW can have a date & go watch the show - perhaps catch an intimate dinner at Furr's Cafeteria beforehand.
Then for a second date you can get together & watch Hee-Haw & then go to the monster truck rally at the Pepsi Center.
Posted by drew on July 27, 2007 01:03 PMActually, Un-American, reading your posts I'm struck by how sensitive and kind you are - to the poor, minorities, etc.
Maybe you & KW should go to a Greenpeace meeting & then to the Michael Moore Movie Marathon at the Mayan (how's that for alliteration? That's when all the words start with the same letter, Un-American).
Posted by drew on July 27, 2007 01:13 PMAn American,
You're wrong, as usual.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 01:13 PMWell Jonesy, as usual you don't know what you're talking about.
As to Bush being a liar: I usually don't use Google. But, for simplicity's sake - as I do want to keep it simple enough for even you to at least try to aprehend - I'll cite 3 places where you can find the information concering the matter of his lying on the subject of WMD in Iraq.
1. realchange.org - a rather extensive coverage on Iraq.
2. sourcewatch.org - another good coverage.
3. thetruthaboutgeorge.com - on this one even the New York Times apologizes for having carried Bush's lies on the subject. And it would take an even more pitifully blind, deaf, and dumb worshiper of Bush than you to find the New York Times to be some kind of "untra-liberal/socialist/etc." not-to-be-accepted source for information.
I have deliberately not put these into hyperlink form, since it seems as if that gets rejected by the software that proof-reads - or checks - postings for hold-up, or just plain deletion. However, I am sure you can get someone to supply the necessary extra little computerese to get you there. If you ever bother to go, that is.
The matter of "conformation to the UN resolutions" remains a non sequitur.
Now you do flatter me. Out of some 9 MILLION + Google citations on Bush, you say: "So they leave it to you to keep up the idiotic mantra that Bush lied . . . etc."
Were you born stupid? Or do you take some kind of pills to insure the condition?
In any event, old boy, do keep on keeping on. It does make the forum amusing, as well as giving opportunity for people to put across facts in reply to some of the most egregious fantasies and fables I've read to date. (Not quite up to the one about chipmunks and the Moonlight Sonata at that, though.)
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 01:45 PMOld Grouch,
I do give people ample opportunity to come up with some facts. Obvioulsy, you've learned to avoid that trap.
Jonesy,
The facts are available at the websites. I don't need to just fill up space with cut and paste. Several of the others have cited, among othr things, the Downing Street Memo, for instance. I take for granted that people have enough intelligence to be able to read, and understand - any part or all - of citations for themselves.
Also, you have been called on the matter of selectively choosing pieces and parts when you do cut and paste; and - so far anyway - you've never been able to actually justify your arguments with that kind of presentation; though you use that technique regularly.
It was Goebbels who did say - if memory serves - that a half-truth sometimes serves the purpose better evn than a full lie.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 03:20 PM