Step away from all of the politics for a moment...Follow

Guess it's going to be a while...

Ah. Well, since you are so darned clever, you could always pick up where Smash left off, explain what the heck point he was actually trying to make, and then maybe provide some sort of defense for the point?

But I guess that would be too much to ask. I've been saying for about a year now that the entire Dem platform is based on rhetoric and innuendo, and it all falls apart when any form of debate is applied. This whole thread simply confirms that suspicion. All Smash did was make some broad claims, then dance around for 2 pages about what exactly the Republicans lied about, and when finally nailed down and called to support his position, he refuses to post.


You know it's really easy to point a finger at someone and call him a name. It's a hell of a lot harder to justify what you've just said. Smash has only shown he's totally unable to support his statements. Whatever. I'll just interpret Smash's childishness as the admission of defeat that it is.

The heart of the issue is that liberals get a little whacky when faced with the reality of a warrior president. They laughed and poked fun of Dubya before 9/11 for his supposed lack of smarts, but it was when he actually dared to take up the sword in defense of his country instead of trying to understand and love our enemies to death did the liberals go rabid. This was the same response that they had when Reagan and Bush Sr. elected to utilize living, breathing military men to enforce their foreign policy instead of pressing a button to send some cruise missles downrange. Liberals are far more comfortable seeing American kept hostage for 444 days than to actually go and blow the **** out of those sand humpers for having the audacity to even think of doing something so stupid.

Why is this? Because liberals are generally pu55ified and spineless. They idolize the Neville Chamberlains of the world and fear the Winston Churchills.

Totem

I wondered when someone would choke on the ***** they were sucking...

;)

Totem

PS: check out my new title!

Does anyone find it hillarious that the Johnny Nam camp and the socia..er..i mean democratic party run around and accuse Bush of lying all the time, when actually Johnny Boy is the one that ran around w/ a video camera during Vietnam and made his boat crew re-enact meaningless stunts that he pulled? And he actually played this crap at the convention! Like some kinda war hero or something. What an ***.

It is not so much that Bush/Blair didn't know that they were false, more that statements were made as if they were unequivocally true. This was the lie.

When you do not know, or are not 100% sure of something, it is a lie to say that you are sure.

Clearly neither Bush nor Blair could have been 100% sure of there being WMD programs and stockpiles in Iraq. The evidence for this is that there are not any.



There is only one credible threat that would have been sufficent justification:

1) If Iraq was invading or otherwise attacking (present tense) another country that is either my country or a country we are allied with.

BTW

"The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden." - Washington Times, June 24, 2004

The URL wouldn't link but if you do a search in google you shouldn't have any problems finding it.


Edited, Wed Aug 4 07:56:51 2004 by Eriston

BTW

There is firm evidence linking the United States regime to the IRA, the terrorist organisation responsible for numerous terrorist attacks on the British mainland.

If there is one good thing about this war it is that the IRA have been behaving themselves.

What countries would that be? Iran? Jordan? Lybia? Those countries have been sheltering terrorists for years, nothing new there.

However, you definately can't count Pakistan in this group. There's definately some house cleaning goin on there.

So by that reasoning, since there's Al Qaeda does not hold political power in any country in the world, then the US should not have responded to the terrorist attacks at all.....

Typical.

Well said Pat.

I also am against pre-emptive war. Especially when they're based on "intelligence" that ends up being so unbelievably innacurate. With Iraq as a prcedence, we could theoretically claim anything we wanted, invade any country we felt like, then state "my bad" when called on it. I also agree that Saddam didn't have much offensive power; certainly nothing that could directly affect US or US interests (other than lobbing misiles at Israel). If anything, Saddam should have been punished for humanitarian violations by the UN, except that the UN proved to be completely incompetent by that point.

As for arguing terrorist support, there's always Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 hijackers, even bin Laden himself (IIRC) are Saudi-born. There are many suspected links between the Saudis and terror campaigns. A quick Google search uncovers the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4687305/
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-16-01.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1213-10.htm

Yet we continue to preserve our strong relations with the Saudis. Why? Maybe OPEC has something to do with it.

C'mon Debalic your logic is flawed about the Suadi Government being linked to terrorism because some of the 19 hi-jackers where born there.


Is it flawed too that the state run and funded Madrasses preach killing Americans in the name of Allah?

Oddly I don't recall Tim McViegh learning in public school that he'd go to heaven if he blew up a federal building.