Bush LIED!!! He LIED!!!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

You've cited examples yourself. I'm being terribly general here, and I haven't read everything you've ever posted, so please keep it in mind that I'm not personally addressing your actions or arguments unless I say so... I'm talking about the predictions of "another Vietnam" and "millions of casualties" and crap like that. Those that said we'd have that marginalized themselves, and continue to do so crying "Wolf!" over every little turn in the road...

I don't understand your infatuation with Wolfowitz, I really don't think he receives anymore criticism than what he deserves.

Most people weren't sure what the war's outcome would be. Some Pentagon brass WERE predicting a long, drawn out battle. Those aren't anti-war hippies, those are soldiers. Two things should also be kept in mind:

1. Even Paul "it's nice to be a God sometimes" Wolfowitz conceded yesterday that the Iraqi soldiers didn't fold in the volumes that were expected. Maybe this isn't Vietnam or a "quagmire," but it has certainly become more than what had been expected.

2. More U.S. soldiers are already dead than the last Gulf War, and it's uncertain as to whether or not the death of Hussein's sons will lead to less guerrilla assaults or more (some militants have already promised retaliation).

I'll say (on that last bit) that I'd never actually considered that. I'll tell you why, though: Bush has yet to address any dissent to his way of doing things. It took far too long for him to talk about the "He Lied!!" accusation, which could possibly be excused by his absense... but as I said, he just never explains his actions.

He certainly did. He dismissed the massive global protests as an "interest group" publicly, and argued that his administration wouldn't bend to an interest group (quite a large interest group, but whatever).

My main problem is with the anti-Bush (only) opposition to the war. They've made major asses out of themselves and embarrassed, if not outright harmed, America. Politics needs to be put back in its proper place in this country.

Bottom line, more Democrats should've gone with their gut and opposed this war from the very beginning. Since they didn't, it makes them look like hypocrites and fools. I can't say I disagree with those criticisms.

Originally Posted by Kev

Granted, those same polls tend to show that most Americans DON'T care about the WMD, and are just proud that we have liberated Iraq (these same citizens will of course dismiss the possibility of sending troops into Liberia on humanitarian grounds. One puritanical crusade is enough for them).

SOMETHING should be done with Liberia, preferably by Liberians or Africans... same thinking applies to N Korea.[/quote]

But what if these people can't do anything about their situations??? Wasn't that the case made for Iraq...?

Joe says he doesn't even know who Al From is. The difference between the DLC and the DNC is also not ringing any bells, either.

Well, with all due respect to Joe, it's his own fault for remaining ignorant on the subject, especially if he chooses to condemn the Democrats for being something they're not.

Pre-9/11. Things have changed, and what Republicans were fit what America needed after 9/11. There's still room for criticism, though... but you have to do it right if you don't want to come off as an intemperate bitch.

You're right, but I think President Bush and the Party Of Goldwater (GOP backwards...get it? I'm clever) have had their fair share of baiting and mud slinging. Calling for a bi-partisan investigation on 9/11 is considered unpatriotic, and criticizing Bush during a questionable war is deeded "dangerous."

www.fairtax.org

VERY fair taxation, with tons of built ins to guarantee the poor are still sheltered... sheltered BETTER, actually. The main advantage over a flat tax is that a sales tax is optional in times of dire need.

That site is extremely comprehensive and, as far as I can see, bullet-proof. </tangent>

I've been there before, although I can't say I recall most of their arguments. Just from personal experience in sales, people tend to HATE sales taxes on goods. I genuinely believe people would rather pay something directly out of their pay check, b/c then it was at least never a tangible item in their wallet.

Think of it as running those programs on credit.

Right, credit investment from beyond our own borders. Not to sound like an illuminist (sp?) or anything, I'm not dreading the influence of the Rothschilds or anything, I just think it's poor fiscal practice.

Originally Posted by ABCDxxxx

Huh? I don't think I've ever addressed that particular issue...I HAVE mentioned the contradiction in leftists working alongside these same communist groups. I'm not so concerned with who chastizes who within the "the left" nearly as much as I am with the Left's reluctance to recognize and chastize Saddam for who he was. One should learn to express arguments against the war without feeling the need to showcase pro-Saddam sentiments, such as how he gives "free education" or provided a good sanitation system.

You take things severely out of context. You have in the past argued that the anti-war movement made too many excuses for Saddam, sort of like the "sanitation system" argument you just threw out there. Your accusations are completely untrue.

One of the key justifications for war with Iraq was the conditions which the Iraqis lived under, some argued they lived in "mud huts." This simply isn't true, and the reality is that Iraqis enjoyed a higher standard of living than most others in the Middle East.

Does this justify their regime?? Absolutely not. Does pointing out basic truths serve as an apologetic for Saddam? I don't believe so.

Are you saying Saddam never has declared war on America?

I think that's a bit different. Saddam enjoyed relatively good relations with our government up until that war, and before the 1st Gulf War would've had little reason to declare war on us. Of course he declared war against us, we were invading him!

Osama on the other hand had more of an anti-globalization, anti-western culture, anti-American imperialism thing going on, and much of his beef with us (if not all of it) was naive at best.

He was a top leader of an oppresive Middle Eastern regime that aided some of the largest networks in the world. It makes him a likely suspect.

Fine. So why not have Gen. Clark throw out Syria or the Palestinian Authority for that matter? Why Iraq? Why not the Saudi regime, which clearly had VERY strong ties to the hijackers...? Why did our government instead allow a Saudi jet into our closed down air space to pick up relatives and country men....?

Kevin - "Question, no problem. Declare a factual link? Big problem. "

Fine, but you're saying it's suspect because it was brought up.

No, that's not what I said. My point was why did they ask Clark to link it to Iraq, and ONLY Iraq?? Why speak so certainly just a day later???

Kevin "Eeverybody said it and meant it prior to 1998. But that was then, this is now, and things change..... "

What's changed since 1998? Certainly not the policies Saddam employed nor his abuse of the food for oil program. We haven't been able to prove the existance of WMD within Iraq...but can you prove WMD or the chemicals to make them weren't stored in Syrian controlled Lebanon?

Have they been stored there all along, or were they moved during the war mobilization...? If they were there all along, why did Colin Powell discuss a "45 minute" threat to our soil?? Could such weapons be deployed from Syria or Lebanon on Saddam's word??? Do you think those two (well, let's say 1 1/2) nations would commit state suicide for ol' Saddam??

If they were supposedly moved during the war, don't you think our military/intelligence would've caught it?? I mean, we had satellite images of tubes being transported, why wouldn't we cath that...?

Hey, a lot of their weapons were probably either made by France or Russia. Why haven't we invaded them along with Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon??? We also shouldn't forget that Qatar's government was financing the terrorist networks in the Kurdish occupied north of Iraq, so maybe we should invade Qatar...? Heck, if Al-Islam or whatever is up near the Kurds, maybe THEY are involved in it! Maybe we should help them create a state, and then BLOW IT UP!

Forgive me if the quest for the WMD reminds me of O.J. Simpson's promise to find his wife's murderer.