Gimpy...questions??

[Gimpy]

I hear ya.................but you ain't making any sense? At least not with any LOGIC that applies here.

Here is your words, and I quote, "We suffered a surprise attack on our civilians at the hands of a bunch of scum-suckin raghead terrorist cowards that hurt us badly.We are now takeing the fight to them to try to assure that doesn't happen again.Seems both simple and reasonable to me.Would you boys have prefered to that we just sat back and licked our wounds after 9/11 rather than do something about it?"...end quote.

No...............I would NOT prefer that. We did..in the beginning.........take the "war" to Afganistan and parts of Pakistan (where the terrorists were located), but in fact DID NOT take to Saudia Arabia where the MAJORITY of them came from??

Bush decided to attack Iraq on his own, against the WILL OF THE PEOPLE BTW (according to ALL pre-war polls that indicated the American public would ratrher WAIT for a U.N. sanctioned authority and coalition of force BEFORE attacking any other country like Iraq).

Made NO difference to him that the evidence was at best "inconclusive" and "manipulated" at worst to cover his a$$!

For more than a year, Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. No evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. No evidence of an affinity between Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and the fundamentalists of al-Qaida. No evidence of a terrorist presence in Iraq greater than in other Arab or Muslim countries. No evidence that Iraq offered weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

The only "agenda" I have is for the "truth " to be used when sending our young troops into harms way. That's ALL!

[reconeil]

Re.: "...you would 'excuse' the military 'efforts' attempted by Clinton administration at Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan and the Bombing of Iraq"? NONSENSE. Never having been a politico, brainwashed political lacky, follower or whatever,...I could never "excuse" the military "efforts" of any DRAFT DODGER or treasonable PROTESTOR on foreign. One would have to be fanatically political to "excuse" such.

Plus:

Only a boob would put American Troops under UN Control with inadequate or questionable armor support if needed, in Somalia.

Only a boob would turn a One Year Tour and after the shooting and dust had settled in Bosnia, into an indefinite stay.

Only a boob would bombed a milk factory in Sudan and considered such a great military victory.

Only a boob would have let hostilities (daily exchanges for 8 years with a defeated enemy) go on so long, and to this point in Iraq.

This isn't The Iraq War II. This is only the continuation and attempted resolution of the initial Iraq War, which The Boob should've resolved during his Officialdom.

Neil

[reconeil]

The analogy was posing the question of whom should be blamed for lies and decieit. Should those taken-in by lies or deceit from Fellow Americans be at blame? Or, is it much more sensible to get-on-the-case of friends lying and deceiving fellow friends and comrades (a President inclusive)? I originally thought that The Analogy was quite clear enough. Guess I was wrong?

Neil

[Gimpy]

But like Doc once said..........that dog won't hunt!

There WAS NO "continuation" of Iraq WAR I.....what planet have YOU been on lately for goodness sakes? It WAS NOT up to US (the U.S.A.) to have an expressed RIGHT to pre-emptively strike at another nation...........no MATTER how despicable or cruel they were. What gave US that "right"!

I'll just quote the editorial writer above, daniel Ruth..."In an attempt to obfuscate the circumstances surrounding Bush's apparent AWOL from reality when it came to the invasion of a foreign country, the deaths of thousands of its citizens, the estrangement from the world community and the loss of American life, the White House has seized upon whether anyone in the administration ever made the precise claim that Saddam posed an ``imminent threat.''

But that is parsing on a scale that makes Bill Clinton look like Mr. Rogers.

In the end, it depends on your definition of bold-faced chutzpah White House hooey.

The overriding predicate for going to war with Iraq began and ended on the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

It was the mantra blathered by every senior member of the Bush administration on the Sunday talk shows, in speeches, including the State of Union address (remember the Niger nuclear gibberish) and before the United Nations.

And now these Heritage Foundation frat boys want you to believe that for all their patronizing hubris, they were led astray by CIA career paper pushers?

How comforting it must be for the families of the U.S. service personnel who have died in Iraq to know that their loved ones gave their lives because the president and his top advisers were led like lemmings into war.".....End Quote!

PS..............the "point" about Clinton was/is that HE "used" the same "sources" as evidence to support HIS military attacks as did GEE-FREAKIN-W in HIS "reasoning" fot attacking Iraq????? Yet YOU "excuse" GEE-FREAKIN-W..............but NOT Clinton.......somewhat of a "double-standard, don't you agree??

[reconeil]

Guess we no doubt see things very differently. I apparently and quite differently believe that when a defeated enemy continually violates MANY truce agreements and resolutions against their very own people and against even the victor (re. The USA)...THAT WAR most certainly was never over. Only politicos could seriously state that such a war was over. That's what they do.

Besides Gimpy, if over a thousand lethal confrontations with Iraqis trying to take-out our aircraft and our knocking-out their SAM Sights over the years seems like PEACETIME to politicos, you or anyone,...that's just not so. In fact, if The French, Germans, Russians, American Leftists and the entire UN consider such PEACETIME,...it's still not so. You're acting as if The Mean Old Administration that's not to YOUR liking had attacked peaceful and friendly Fiji or Tahiti. That's not so either.

No war in history (Iraq excluded) ever ended with the looser and his collaborators dictating terms to the victor. But then,...I guess that's what fighting politically-correct wars gets you?

Still Gimpy, and just out of curiosity, do you honestly believe that: "The Boob" was a better Commander-In-Chief, than the one we have now? Truly look forward to your answer.

Neil :cl:

[Gimpy]

HELL YES!

Nuff said!

[reconeil]

Re. My question: "Do you honestly believe that: "The Boob" was a better Commander-In-Chief, than the one that we have now", and your answer; "HELL YES!",...besides being absolutely amazing, such truly blows your cover. You give new meaning to being a: "Staunch, clique obedient, party line above all else, lock-step and/or intransigent Democrat".

Hell, I don't believe that even Madam and/or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would've so foolishly made such a favorable comparison of 2 so different (one believable and pro-Military and one anti-Military, plus pathological liar) Commanders-In-Chiefs, even though occasionally (maybe?) sharing the same bed with one. "Politics makes for strange bedfellows".

Still, a Veteran favoring Clinton over ANYONE ELSE as Commander-In-Chief, IS ABSOLUTELY MINDBOGGLING!!!,...even from an abnormal and/or normally surrealistic political perspective. :cd: :cd: :cd: Wonder if Kerry would make the same absurd choice as you,...or even hire Bill on as a Military or Moral Advisor if given the chance? :cd: :cd: :cd: A truly scary scenario for America,...both militarily and morally.

Neil

[Gimpy]

It's really not that hard at all to "understand" why?

All you have to do is LOOK and READ all the "evidence" that Motatrdude (and myself) have posted regarding the "Clinton" years in office and the respective, abundant prosperity this nation achieved during that period.... versus the damnable, revolting record that Bush has committed against this nation in HIS time in office!

It's fairly simple, all you have to do is R-E-A-D!

[kmetz]

What boob let Sadam go when the Gulf War ended?

There were many ways to avoid the draft--you could join the Texas Air National Guard . . . . and . . . .

[reconeil]

I thank you, Mortardude, all others of your bent, and even in general The Mainstream Press/Media very much, for trying so hard to sway or swing-me-around to your/their normally liberal and/or overly-politicized manner of perceiving troublesome realities. Hey,...this is America. So, why not?

But, and try as hard as I might, I can't totally believe most heard or read from such sources, since usually too one-sided. Plus, IRONICALLY (some might say: "Purposefully") such is usually done in the name of: "Fairness and Equality For All", and even for foreigners, anti-America, and even anti-God individuals.

Regardless, and thanks again for your bent's input, but I'll stick with FNC (Fox News Channel) for determining what should be believed (or not).

Also, FNC and I (no doubt MANY OTHERS also) are much more like-minded and compatable. Then too, FNC also apparently realizes that: "The Truth (naturally unequivocating or apolitical type) is not always kind to all",...and especially not kind to staunch bents or ideologues perpetually bending truths and realities favorably towards their desired ends or agendas.

Sorry Gimpy, but as a TRULY Free American (free of mind and/or not politically brainwashed that The Party is Supreme),...I just can't see things any other way, which isn't truly all that bad. After all, I believe that seeing things as Our Forefathers once envisioned America being, is nothing to be ashamed of.

Besides, I personally prefer the course Our Forefathers initially charted for us,...infinitely much better than the hazardous and rock-strewn direction and course some self/clique-serving (ABOVE ALL ELSE) politicos would have us now travel.

Neil