Operation Iraqi Liberation...

“"Did we not set up/support the Shah of Iran in the 70's? Did we not support Hussein & Osama?"

Yes but hindsight is 20/20. Would it be better to train and help a Osama that is friendly to us at the time or send our troops in to fight the USSR? Should we help and fund a Saddam that was friendly to us at the time in order to fight Iran or should we have sent in troops to help fight the Iranian regiem? Friends of ours betray us and turn on us and somehow it's OUR fault?”

“I'm saying we can't take any moral high ground here since we aren't helping the people of the world that most need our help. IMO Iraq was no threat to us.

It is not our fault that we get betrayed but it is our failt that apparently we aren't learning from our mistakes. Each "solution" has led to another problem. I don't have an answer but we are not solving anything by continuing the same policies.”

“bison -

"And setting up a stable democratic regime in the middle east that will allow some measure of economic prosperity isn't treating the problem? ........."



This style of Government is complety "West" and is not wanted. I know it seems logical that everyone would want what we have, but there viewpoint (consumerism is evil) will not allow them to think "West".

They see us as crusaders, a marketing plan decades in the making. We not dealing with just Iraq with this:

We're dealing with all of the years of BS we've pulled in the region with installing our "people" to govern them and we're dealing with our ties to Israel, who we all know that very few Arabs look fondly upon. There is a lot of pent of agression in that area.

Us going into Iraq does nothing but create 100 Osamas a day around the world. It gives justifacation to what the clerics in the Mosques have been saying to there people - "America = Bad! They want you to be Christian! They will kill you all and conquer your land".

Why are they all of a sudden having probelms, one year later, with a major Cleric in the area? Damn! This is the most fighting we have seen in almost a year! They couldn't pacify this man?”

“Are you saying these brave soldiers gave their lives for nothing?"
Nigal
03:53:20 PM

With all due respect, when I hear that from their parents, I will find it more believable than when you say it, Nigal.”

“(CBS) By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer
President Bush is facing increasing dissent among leading conservative politicians and pundits in the face of mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq.

The war has become the long slog that some Republicans feared. Since Sunday, 32 Americans have been killed in fighting across Iraq. American body bags are on the front page of major U.S. newspapers.

The Washington Post and The New York Times brandished images of charred U.S. civilian remains last week. The networks are leading their nightly news broadcasts with stories of dead Americans.

"If we have two or three more weeks of this you are going to start to see Republican members of Congress who have never been critical of President Bush and the Iraq policy starting to get that way," said Charles Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Republican Party ranks are beginning to break and the White House is worried. Longtime GOP critics on Iraq are growing progressively more vocal in their condemnation.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, has strongly suggested that the Bush administration reconsider its June 30 deadline to transfer sovereignty from the interim government to Iraqis.

"How do you know, come June 30, that a civil war will not occur?" Lugar said on Voice of America radio. "After all, the coalition has not disarmed all of these militia that these religious groups have in various places. They still are armed and apparently ready to fight."

Usually loyal pundits are speaking out, too. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday, "U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient."

There are currently 135,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq – along with 24,000 international troops – and pressure is rising on the Bush administration to increase troop deployment. But the Department of Defense says it plans to decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by tens of thousands around the June 30 deadline.

The White House continues to claim that most Iraqis support the American presence. But even some ardent conservative backers of the president are voicing skepticism.

"I'm not buying this 'Iraqis are on the American side' right now," Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said on the Tuesday night broadcast of "The O’Reilly Factor." The leading conservative commentator repeatedly called the current conflict a "second war in Iraq."

O'Reilly added, "I think Rumsfeld has got a lot of explaining to do here. There's a lot of mistakes that are now killing American soldiers."

Fellow conservative pundit and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough of MSNBC was even more critical in his broadcast Tuesday.

Scarborough: "Do we need more troops in Iraq? Hell, yes, we do. ... Should June 30 handover date to the Iraqis be extended? You can bet your life on it ... because creating this false deadline in time for a presidential election is no way to win a war."”

““This style of Government is complety "West" and is not wanted. I know it seems logical that everyone would want what we have, but there viewpoint (consumerism is evil) will not allow them to think "West".”

What about Qatar? It’s working for them pretty well.”

“It's about as far away from 'working' for these guys as it can be at the moment, though...”

“Jesus Tree. What? The day Saddam is captured you expect the Iraqis to suddenly be free capitalists? This isn't microwave polotics. It takes time.”

“Sue me for being skeptical about these people's desires for democracy and as to whether they can handle it. If I'm wrong, then hey, so be it! Won't be the first time I put my foot in my mouth. As to whether this was worth the price we are paying, still skeptical about that. Sorry, Buddy. All a schnook like me can go on is gut reaction, and that's mine!”

“And all I can do concerning that gut reaction is use the one voice given to me. That comes in November. That's my right, too!”

“The simple fact is that they don’t even know what democracy is other than what they have been taught by the regime they lived under. They are going to have to learn exactly what it is and what it will mean to them. Gut reactions are fine but we can’t assume that they are either unbiased nor are they even based on the truth. It’s just lunacy to expect things to change over night. My guess is that there would be far more patience if it was democrat in office.”

“Nigal, the comment about whether a dem was in office is BS and you know it. Let me ask you this, especially since you know my voting habits so well. Did I vote for any republicans in the last 5 years?”

“"Nigal, the comment about whether a dem was in office is BS and you know it."

No, it's not BS. Your own comments that I have read over the last year or so shows clearly that your stance and views are anything BUT unbiased towards conservatives or their policies. The general habit of the liberals here (and everywhere) is to sniff out any single thing they can use as ammo to furthur their own views and you are not inocent of this either. At least have the honesty to admit that you treat and expect different things from a conservative president than a liberal one. Can you honestly say that you have the same patience for a conservative president as a liberal one?

"Let me ask you this, especially since you know my voting habits so well. Did I vote for any republicans in the last 5 years?"

Did I ever say I knew your voting habits? No. Here we go again with putting assumptions in my mouth. This is and always has been your way of discussion. And every time you get called on this you apologize and say you'll do better and then you fall right into the same habit. Honesty doesn't fly the kite after the 10th time Tree.”

“You brought up the party lines bit, Nig. Not me. I wouldn't support this war based on the "facts" we were given no matter who is in the f-ing White House. And that's a fact.”

“"You brought up the party lines bit, Nig. Not me. I wouldn't support this war based on the "facts" we were given no matter who is in the f-ing White House. And that's a fact."

So were you railing on back when Clinton attacked Iraq based on the exact same intell Bush had? Based on the exact smae info provided by the UN weapons inspectors?”

“And don't be so innocent either. I have yet to see you pass up an opportunity to take a jab at a "lib" or a "dem".”

“That is because I am honest enough to admit that I personally feel that liberalism is the enemy of liberty. I wasn't trying to be innocent and never claimed to be. I'll shout it from the mountain tops, "I'm a proud conservative and I shall fight to uphold the values that have made this the greatest nation in the history of the world! I will fight liberalism at every chance and turn!".

It was your tone that suggested you were above it when what you actually say says different.

Now that we are clear on MY stand, answer the question.”

“I see differences between the air strikes back then and the 'Vietnam type quagmire' that we are in now. So,I don't see it as exactly the same as sending in ground troops and having them come home in body bags. The whole Iraq mess stunk from the get-go, being that it should have been finished with before Clinton. So, let me say that I wasn't as down on Clinton as I am on the current administration. And that's being honest. But, it's not just a repub/dem thing either. I don't remember a pretext for selling the attack back then like I do this one. Maybe that's because of media focus and the absence of the president going on national TV, making allegations and trying to garner public support for it. I don't remember it happening that way. I am not trying to be evasive either, Nigal. I am having trouble cutting the two situations so perfectly down the middle as if they were exactly the same circumstances.”

“And where do you draw the line between democratic values and what you term 'liberalism'? Are all democrats liberals? Are all republicans conservatives? There may be tendencies that way, but is it really carved in stone?”

“Tree that Muqtada dude was quoted in paper he wants to turn iraq into " another Vietnam for america" isn't that sweet of him...

I probably should have started a seperate thread for this, but we really dont need another political thread......I have a question....

We have not a PEEP about Saddam and what is happening to him or what they have found out. I'm they caught him and it was huge news and now for weeks there has been ZILCH!! What ya think their up too with him..??? just curious for any insight.”

“And, furthermore, would we really be a democracy with liberty and justice for all if all those liberals were silenced?”

“Snafu, I was reading about him the other day. Nothing much, except they are saying that he isn't coughing up much info.”

“A report in the Washington Post has confirmed that Saddam will be released for his cooperation in helping to capture Osama. Furthermore, as part of the deal, Saddam will head up a new government in Afghanistan with Manuel Noreiga as his Minister of Good Times.

The story of Osama's capture will be published shortly, along with a true life story on Lifetime.”

“From December 16, 1998

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

This part was the most striking to me personally…

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.”

So we have Clinton back in 1998 KNOWING what the solution was but not having the fortitude to carry through. Then in 2000 we got Dubya that goes after Iraq for the exact same reasons based on the exact same intell that Clinton did in ’98 but he DOES have the fortitude to follow through, thereby correcting Clinton’s failure. And Bush is the A-hole. Had Clinton done what needed to be done and done the same thing Bush 43 is doing the left would have celebrated and said he was cleaning up after Bush 41.

My next post will deal with Bush’s reasons for going in and with the absolute blind eye the left has turned from it’s own.”

“"And where do you draw the line between democratic values and what you term 'liberalism'?”

If a democrat has liberal tendencies and seek to further a liberal agenda I call them a liberal.

“Are all democrats liberals?”

No.

“Are all republicans conservatives?”

No.

“There may be tendencies that way, but is it really carved in stone?"

No. This is why I try to shy away from using the terms Republican and Democrats. For me it is conservatism vs. liberalism.

"And, furthermore, would we really be a democracy with liberty and justice for all if all those liberals were silenced?"

Who said anything about silencing them? Liberals have every single right conservatives have. They can say anything they like. I don’t want liberals silenced, I just don’t want them to be in any position of power or leadership.”

“Again, we didn't commit ground troops to an all out war, which is what we have now.



I don’t want liberals silenced, I just don’t want them to be in any position of power or leadership."
Nigal


So, the democrats should have the same platform as the republicans? I don't quite get that...

...Has nothing good ever come form the "other side". No domestic programs? Not a one?”

“Not according to LImbaugh, Tree.

Don't you get it?”

“Between the time of 9/11 and leading into the war we had many polotians giving their take on Iraq and what should be done. Here’s a small list of some of the things the liberals were saying. And we are talking liberals like…Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos. Tom Harkin. Arlen Specter. Barbara Boxer. Robert Byrd. Wesley Clark, Jacques Chirac, Hillary Clinton, William Cohen, John Edwards, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, John Rockefeller, and Henry Waxman.


"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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."

-- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities"

-- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."

-- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

-- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

-- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

-- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

-- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

-- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

-- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."

-- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-- Al Gore, 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."

-- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

-- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

-- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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."

-- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

-- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."

-- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

-- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."

-- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."

-- Patty Murray, October 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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."

-- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."

-- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Now, all these people were saying the same thing Bush 43 has said. Why are these guys apparently exempt from scrutiny? Why is everything laid at Bush’s feet? Why do we never hear these quotes from the left? And further more why, when the going got tough all these people suddenly turned and pointed the finger at Bush and Bush alone? Pandering. Plain and simple. These quotes were the right thing to say at the time in a post 9/11 environment but as soon as our boys started having to give their lives for the war they found the safest thing for them to do was to attack Bush. They blow in the wind which ever way it goes.”

““So, the democrats should have the same platform as the republicans?”

No. I wasn’t implying that. What I said was that I desired to not have liberals in positions of power.

“...Has nothing good ever come form the "other side". No domestic programs? Not a one?"

Yes. The non-divisive ones that do not try to further a liberal agenda or threaten liberties.”

“Liberal agenda does not threaten liberty, Nigal.

Its the right-wing agenda that has threatened liberty.....Patriot Act, secret energy policy, lying about the true cost of Bush's Medicare "reform"........”

“What's a liberal agenda according to you, Nigal?”

“Then why did Bush choose to sell this war in the fashion that he did? Why did they change the reasons for going there so many times? Why did he tell us that an imminent attack on the U.S. could materialize in 45 minutes? Why did he link al quada with Saddam? Maybe there is more than meets the eye. The fact is, pretty much all politicians treat the American people as if we are idiots, party notwithstanding. I always felt that Saddam was under such scrutiny in the eyes of the world at the time that he couldn't drop a load without being under a microscope. The chance of him launching that imminent attack didn't seem as likely as Bush put it. So, the alienation of the countries that could have been part of a larger coalition was a mistake. There has been a lot of holes in his and Powells 'sell' to the American public. This tells me that there are things on the table that we don't know about. So, given this, when things come back on Bush, I am not surprised. I don't know why anyone would be. As far as giving them democracy, my feelings are still for taking care of business here at home and not ignoring domestic problems as I feel this administration has. Sorry if I am a bit callous about the needs of the Iraqis. We have needs here. Privatizing everything under the sun isn't what I would vote for as an answers to our needs. I could go into quite a few other ossues that I disagree with Bush on, but I don't want to stray too far. We could save that for yet another thread...”

“In places like China or South Korea liberalization means more liberty, not less.

Regimes that have been far left or far right are more conservative, inflexible in their idealogy and resistant to change.”

“"Then why did Bush choose to sell this war in the fashion that he did? Why did they change the reasons for going there so many times?”

The “sell” was Saddam’s refusal to abide by the UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement he signed. What came in between were the reasons for the administrations ergency for going now, rather than to continue to drag on without results as we had for the passed 12 years. I personally feel this crap should have been over looong before now.

“Why did he tell us that an imminent attack on the U.S. could materialize in 45 minutes?”

I’ve never heard this quote. The imminency of an attack of some kind was based on the intell we had at the time.

“Why did he link al quada with Saddam?”

History has shown us time and again that it is common for enemies to join together against us. Al Quada and Saddam were the top two. Why wouldn’t they work together?

“Maybe there is more than meets the eye.”

There always is. The general public will never be privy to all the facts, nor should we due to protecting our own intelligence and assets.

“So, the alienation of the countries that could have been part of a larger coalition was a mistake.”

I don’t feel so. We had the balls to enforce the rules set upon Iraq by their own actions. Because others did not is on them. Not us. Let’s face it, France wasn’t the one with the bullseye on their back. Niether was Germany. Plus they had financial ties they did not want to lose. The funniest thing in my mind is the fact that many of the former Soviet Block nations were the first ones to stand with us. Poland gets it.

“There has been a lot of holes in his and Powells 'sell' to the American public.”

In hindsight yes. We were going on what we believed to be true based on the intell we had. Each of these selling points seem small and not a reason for justification but when viewed as a whole they were overwhelming.

“So, given this, when things come back on Bush, I am not surprised. I don't know why anyone would be.”

But when provided a huge list of quotes made by the left based on the exact same intell Bush made his speeches and selling points on, Bush is the one coming out as being the A-hole. Do you see how this can appear hinky?”

“Seriously, Nigal, what are the elements of a liberal agenda in your eyes?”

“Al Quada and Saddam were the top two. Why wouldn’t they work together?

Because of fundamental religious differences.

We had the balls to enforce the rules set upon Iraq by their own actions. Because others did not is on them.

My way or the highway? I think we will always differ on this point, but that's ok, Nigal.


Do you see how this can appear hinky?"


the nature of the beast is that the one whose watch it happens under gets the sh_t tossed at him/her. Bush isn't the first one this happened to. Why should I feel any different towards his situation?

Also, don't overlook the fact that the nation is severelt divided right now. I'm not the only one questioning these things. There are lots of people out there that are looking for answers. They are not all libs either...”

“"But when provided a huge list of quotes made by the left based on the exact same intell Bush made his speeches and selling points on, Bush is the one coming out as being the A-hole. Do you see how this can appear hinky?"

Bush lied to those "leftists" and convinced them to go along with his agenda.

They trusted him.

Why should they catch hell when Bush was the one who lied, misled and prevaricated?

Bush is the commander in chief yet takes no responsibility for having misled the congress and the public.

Bush has passed the buck saying it was faulty intelligence.”

“Time-out for terminology ---

hink-y (adj.)
Other Forms: v. hink, -ed
Etymology: Used in noir pulp fiction and the law enforcement community.

Suspicious, strange, unusual; acting in a manner as if having something to hide, or seemingly crooked.”

““Because of fundamental religious differences.”

They are enjoined by fundamentalist Islam even though they are fo two separate movements. Was it not Osama that stated in one of his tapes, “They enemy of my enemy is my friend.”? Saddam and Arafart are not cut from the same religious cloth but he had no problems sending money and goods to Palestine.

“My way or the highway? I think we will always differ on this point, but that's ok, Nigal.”

No. More like, “Hey dude. We’re gonna go kick the schoolyard bullies a$$. Wanna come? No? OK.”

“the nature of the beast is that the one whose watch it happens under gets the sh_t tossed at him/her. Bush isn't the first one this happened to. Why should I feel any different towards his situation?”

This does not make it acceptable. The president is but 1/3 of an equal governmental branch. Why does that 1/3 get left holding the bag?

“I'm not the only one questioning these things. There are lots of people out there that are looking for answers. They are not all libs either..."

As a conservative it is my responsibility to demand that my leaders are kept in line. I don’t mind questions and I actually ask them too. It’s the divisive politicizing of each and every single thing that I most hate. I personally feel Bush isn’t doing enough. The fact is this: Bush will be hated by the left no matter what he does. Nothing he does will NOT be attacked so I feel he needs to stop being such the nice guy and do what he knows is right. He needs to quit playing the moderate and just do what is right. He’ll be attacked either way.”

“A good point was made today by former Nebraska Governor Kerrey. He stated to Condi Rice, and I paraphrase:

He didn't agree with the current situation in Iraq, and thinks the Bush policy is making the situation worse. He cited the fcat that we have an army of 150,000, mostly christians fighting a war against an islamic middle eastern country.


Note now that our christian fundamentalist president that weis now fighting islamic fundamentalists. Looks like that crusade gaffe by Bush was no gaffe at all. Maybe Bush can draft a "christian" army, and leave us normal sane folks alone.”

“Bush is a nice guy and a moderate? What happened to that tough guy, flex your muscles GWB that has been out in the open for the past three years?

Why does that 1/3 get left holding the bag?

Because, whether you or I like it or not, that's the reality of it. Welcome to America!


Again, these are divided times and the hot issues are just that. HOT! And his methods can be controversial, and that's putting it mildly. He can, is and will come under fire. You don't think Gore would be nursing a few ulcers at this point if the election had gone the other way?”

“Quit playing the moderate????


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..........


Game over, Nigal is out of touch with reality!!!


I'm going to go and talk this over with my favorite special rock.”

“"Bush is a nice guy and a moderate? What happened to that tough guy, flex your muscles GWB that has been out in the open for the past three years?”

I was referring to the politician’s need to try to please everyone and moderate because he IS moderate. Look at the diversity of his appointments of his cabinate. The severity of his conservatism is also dependant upon the level of liberalism of the person. To a left leaning liberal, hell yeah he looks extreme.

“Because, whether you or I like it or not, that's the reality of it. Welcome to America!”

This doesn’t make it right. This is why we can have nut jobs like Kusenich and Dashell taking the types of shots at Bush with no accountability for their claims. Bush has to try to play the statesman and isn’t allowed to fire back because he has to keep up the higher ground.


“And his methods can be controversial, and that's putting it mildly.”

Again, this is being measured with the liberal’s yard stick.

“He can, is and will come under fire. You don't think Gore would be nursing a few ulcers at this point if the election had gone the other way?"

Sure he’ll be under fire. Would Gore be in the same boat? I doubt it. Under him we wouldn’t have the military strength nor the intestinal fortitude to do what Bush has done.”

“Nigal isn't out of touch with reality, he resides in a reality clouded by religious fundamental idealism, which has nothing to do with reality, common sense, or anything that could be considered just. He's not alone though, his president suffers from the same affliction.”

“"Would Gore be in the same boat? I doubt it. Under him we wouldn’t have the military strength nor the intestinal fortitude to do what Bush has done."
Nigal
12:21:02 PM
04/08/04

They said the same thing about Clinton, yet seem to be able to fight 2 wars with his army. How'd that happen?”

“I could generalize and say that every single time Gore's name has come up on this board, a conservative has made an assertive assumption as to how he would have handled whatever is at hand and substantiated none of it, but I will try and be civil...”

“"I could generalize and say that every single time Gore's name has come up on this board, a conservative has made an assertive assumption as to how he would have handled whatever is at hand and substantiated none of it, but I will try and be civil..."

I don't remeber saying anything in the past except that I was glad he wasn't put into office and that things would be worse had he been put in. My statement is based upon the record of the administration he served under not just based on conjecture.”

“When it comes to 9/11, this was the first time (and only time) everyone in the country was on the same page. Going after bin laden and Afghanistan would have been the way to go whether George Bush, Al Gore or even Joe Walsh was in the White House. We had to retaliate and that was it.”

“"Going after bin laden and Afghanistan would have been the way to go whether George Bush, Al Gore or even Joe Walsh was in the White House."

Joe Walsh in '04!! the state of the union speech being given while sucking helium is an experience we can not pass up!”

“I think we are finally on common ground, Nigal!!!”