Gonna PO alot of you

[SEATJERKER]

...AND PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES...

...being thousands of miles away, and only consuming what the media wants us all to believe, NO...

... before 9/11, we were sitting back being usual Americans, and then came the biggest reality check that has ever been rammed up this Country's ass,...

...Bush 1 did not invade Kuwait, SADUMB did, and the toll it has taken on our brother, and sister veterans will unfold in the coming years as they start dying also from chemicals the were desposed of in 91...

...so now 12 years later after cat, and mouse games of hide, and seek, SADUMB manages to bury everything, and anything he can before the invasion, he knew it was coming as sure as the sun will shine tomorrow, I'm sure all that were associated with the "hiding" are dead also in cement tombs as why leave any witnesses on either side of the coin, they will be found in the year 2525 right...

...the bastard didn't get all he deserved for the thousands of lives he distroyed,...

..."preemptive" was the term to discribe the action, and I for one believe, only after multipudes of warnings upon warnings, and lack of actions, GWB said screw it, time to kick the "bully" in the balls, it's the only way to stop one,... "take it to them" as most "bullies" are cowards in the first place, and it's the wimpy kid who's had enough that takes him out becouse "it's the right thing to do"...

...trying to mass national politics, and world security into one thread isn't right,...

...secondary reasons do not matter, the first, and only reason for kicking his ass was because it was way past due for ALL of the prior atrocieties he commited, and he "never played by the rules" so we change them, period...

...start with the biggest one, kick his ass, and the rest of the jerks just may think twice before starting to follow suit down the wrong road...

..."whos next", just step out of line...

[HARDCORE]

"A good political debate here!"

[Gimpy]

Thank you very much!

I NEVER questioned what caused Gulf War I, now did I?? Or EVER questioned the justification for that war?

Or questioned ANY thing our troops did or SUFFERED from in EITHER of these conflicts -- now did I?

But, since (and foremost in MY book) POLITICIANS determine "national politics" AND our "security" in the "world" today and in the future----WHY isn't it alright to discuss or debate these issues on the same thread??

Anyway, who made YOU the "thread police" or the gave you the authority to determine the "rules" of discussion around here??

Now lookee heanh Curtis----I love you brother---but DONTCHA go round spoutin off about who has the "right" to "say" or "not to say" what they feel may be "appropriate---or not---that you may happen to be in disagreement with regarding WHATEVER the "subject matter" may be, OK???

Now, back to the "subject" at hand----where were we??

[1IDVET]

?So here is my thus-far unasked question: If there never were WMDs in Iraq then why didn't Saddam Hussein invite the U.N. inspectors into Iraq a month before, a week before, a day before hostilities broke out? Why didn't he tell the U.N. convincingly that he was opening up the country to show he had no WMDs?

"Had he made so compelling an offer to the U.N. weeks before war broke out, he would have stopped the American attack before it began because Saddam would then have been in compliance with the appropriate U.N. resolutions. And more importantly, Saddam would still be sitting on his throne. One can speculate about Saddam's mental balance but surely it makes no sense for Saddam to have given up WMDs and then allowed the inevitable invasion that led to his ignominious defeat. If we can't find WMDs then what happened to them? And when??

Rush

?Many of the critics suggesting that the Bush administration exaggerated the threat of Saddam Hussein to justify war in Iraq didn't raise those questions when they emerged from intelligence briefings.? Shazam! Did I not say this? These people all voted for this military use-of-force resolution. They saw the intelligence briefings. Not one of them expressed doubts about them.

More: ?Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who is running for president, suggested in a CNN interview on Sunday that the Bush administration might have willfully distributed erroneous information on the threat posed by Iraq ? a charge that CIA Director George J. Tenet denied vigorously in a rare public statement made Friday and released this week. ?If we don't find these weapons of mass destruction, it will represent a serious intelligence failure or the manipulation of that intelligence to keep the American people in the dark,? said Mr. Graham.?

Rush

And one from a liberal source:

TONY Blair crushed Labour rebels yesterday and rejected claims he lied over the war in Iraq.

He wiped the floor with critics who called for evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

And he dismissed opposition claims that he doctored security reports showing Saddam was 45 minutes away from using his WMDs.

He told MPs: ?There have been many claims made about the Iraq conflict: That hundreds of thousands of people were going to die in it, that it was going to be my Vietnam.

?That the Middle East was going to be in flames and this latest one, that WMD were a complete invention by the British Government.

The truth is some people resent the fact it was right to go to conflict and we won the conflict.

?Iraq is now free and we should be proud of that.?

He added: ?The people of Iraq are delighted that a brutal dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of their people is gone.

?The British Army and the British people should be proud of the role this country played in removing him.?

Labour rebels planning to attack the PM over claims that he doctored intelligence reports to ?dupe? voters into backing the war were silenced after Cabinet bruiser John Prescott read them the riot act over disloyalty.

Mr Prescott stormed into their weekly meeting and told them: ?This is all about the integrity of the party. The Prime Minister does not lie.?

Mr Blair yesterday summoned Joint Intelligence Committee chief Sir John Scarlett to discuss claims that ?rogue? intelligence officers were
briefing against Labour.

But in the Commons he hailed the ?superb job? done by Britain?s security and intelligence services.

And he rejected calls from Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith for an independent judicial inquiry into the allegations of doctoring evidence.

He said: ?All these allegations that have been made are completely without substance. If these people have any evidence they should produce it.?

He added: ?There was no attempt at any time by any official or minister or member of 10 Downing Street staff to override the intelligence judgments of the JIC.?

But he offered full co-operation to a Commons Intelligence and Security Committee probe.

And he promised he would give evidence if asked ? and publish its findings.

The Sun

[Seascamp]

Easy answer. Sick and tired of being scolded, shouted down and bullied for presenting an opinion that doesn?t fit Liberal orthodoxy and the holy grail of hating anything or anybody center or right of center. I?m out of this thread, see ya?ll on a different topic.
Scamp

[phuloi]

Quoting the GERMAN PRESS??!!! You have hit an all time low,my dear friend. :ek:

[1IDVET]

Originally posted by phuloi Quoting the GERMAN PRESS??!!! You have hit an all time low,my dear friend. :ek:

He also quoted that liberal communist rag the LA Times. :re:

[1IDVET]

Originally posted by Gimpy the war was about "OIL"!

Check THIS out!

**********************

Wolfowitz: ?Iraq War Was About Oil?
By George Wright

Wednesday 04 June 2003

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

OK Check this out!

Guardian: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

What he really said:
Transcript: "Look, the primariy difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil."


Of course this goes beyond the simple misquote. That might (if one was extremely charitable) be excused as a problem of translating from English to German and back. (The Guardian did publish before the DOD transcript of the Q&A portion of Wolfowitz' talk was posted.)


The real problem is extreme, blatant and willful (or shockingly ignorant) mischaracterization. The Guardian, in their lead sentence -- indeed in the first clause of the first sentence -- paraphrased Wolfowitz as having "claimed" that, "Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq". As you can certainly read for yourself, Wolfowitz claimed nothing of the kind. Not on any reading. Not in any language. Wolfowitz was merely noting that North Korea is on the verge of economic collapse, that this would present a large and possibly intolerable problem for South Korea if the regime were to suddenly implode, and that the same problem did not apply to Iraq since it had plenty of hard currency producing oil.


Furthermore, the following transcript should have been available to The Guardian, wherein Wolfowitz explicitly and forcefully repudiates the position they attribute to him:

Q: I'm Satoru Suzuki with TV-Asahi of Japan. Mr. Secretary, eleven weeks have passed since the coalition forces moved into Iraq. Yet you've found no weapons of mass destruction in that country -- no convincing evidence yet. Given that, are you still convinced that you'll be able to find such weapons eventually and, in the absence of such weapons, how can you still justify the war, and what would you say to those critics in Japan and the rest of the world who've been saying that the war was mainly about oil?

Wolfowitz: Well, let me start with the last part. The notion that the war was ever about oil is a complete piece of nonsense. If the United States had been interested in Iraq's oil, it would have been very simple 12 years ago or any time in the last 12 years to simply do a deal with Saddam Hussein. We probably could have had any kind of preferred customer status we wanted if we'd been simply willing to drop our real concerns. Our real concerns focused on the threat posed by that country -- not only its weapons of mass destruction, but also its support for terrorism and, most importantly, the link between those two things. You said it's eleven weeks since our troops first crossed the Kuwaiti border, and coalition troops first entered Iraq, as though eleven weeks were a long time. Eleven weeks is a very short time. In fact, unfortunately, significant elements of the old regime are still out there shooting at Americans, killing Americans, threatening Iraqis. It is not yet a secure situation and I believe that probably influences to some extent the willingness of Iraqis to speak freely to us.

We -- as the whole world knows -- have in fact found some significant evidence to confirm exactly what Secretary Powell said when he spoke to the United Nations about the development of mobile biological weapons production facilities that would seem to confirm fairly precisely the information we received from several defectors, one in particular who described the program in some detail. But I wouldn't suggest we've gotten to the bottom of the whole story yet. We said, when Resolution 1441 was being adopted, that the most important thing was to have free and unintimidated access to Iraqis who know where these things are. Simply going and searching door to door in a country the size of the state of California is not the way you would find things. You would find things when people start to give you information -- we're still in an early stage of that process and there is no question we will get to the bottom of what's there.

But there should be no doubt whatsoever this was a war undertaken because our President and the Prime Minister of England and the other countries that joined with us believe -- and I think they believe correctly -- that this regime was a threat to our security and a threat that we could no longer live with. It is also the case that, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, this regime was a horrible abuser of its own people and that there is no question the Iraqi people are far better off with that regime gone.


And there you have it, proof positive of the leftist spin on everthing!

[Gimpy]

Yea right! Except that if you guys think THAT'S low, and the L.A. Times is a "communist rag" then you all must REALLY be in a deluded state of mind to think that ultra right-wing, fanatical lunatic of a so-called radio celebrity Rush Limburger ain't the number one screwed up dude of the MOST "biased" type, huh?? Now THERE'S a REAL reputable, reliable and trustworthy "source" for "un-biased" information if there EVER was one! Gimmie a break!!!!

Don't worry my friends--the TRUTH will come out---and it AIN'T gonna be pretty when it does!

The "BUSH-WACKER" boys have got you ALL so "propagandized" and believing their crap that it's starting to get actually funny!

BTW---What about my "question" that the epitomy of all things right-wing (R. Reagen) asked a few years ago---Are you (the Nation) better off NOW than we were when this "cowboy" took office! I think NOT!!!!

[1IDVET]

Just firing back with a bigger cannon dude.
You liberals are so screwed up in the head it's funny.
I can't believe you guys buy into your own friggin arguments.
Speaking of arguments, notice that when a liberal doesn't have an answer, they generally attack with name calling.
Funny how you prove that point for me as well.