http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

You really enjoy watching the shit fly around here don't you?

Cue Freethinker and the rest in 3 . . . 2. . . 1

You really enjoy watching the shit fly around here don't you?
Hell yes...don't you?? Hmm...Simply amazing. Even the Dems aren't going to touch this one with a ten foot pole!?!

It was over four years ago. The fact remains that we did go to war in Iraq. Let it go already.

Was there a point to this?

Was there a point to this?
Yes dharmabum. All the cheap-shot Bush bashing on this site. The very people you constantly defend were backing the war (or occupation, whatever you are calling it now) in Iraq. Damn It!

I know, I know, OD. People can change their minds.

:corn:

:corn:
I know Mike. But I love this country and can't stand to see Americans dogging this country.

who is dogging the country?

who is dogging the country?
Please.

The most heartbreaking part of the arguments the democrats have come up with, Bush fixed the intelligence, Iraq wasn't a threat, Saddam wasn't working on WMDs, blah, blah, blah, is that the Republicans rolled over and let the Dems walk all over and the Presdident without raising a fuss, dammit.

All the cheap-shot Bush bashing on this site.
Bush eats babies slathered in bleu cheese.

The most heartbreaking part of the arguments the democrats have come up with, Bush fixed the intelligence, Iraq wasn't a threat, Saddam wasn't working on WMDs, blah, blah, blah, is that the Republicans rolled over and let the Dems walk all over and the Presdident without raising a fuss, dammit.
Am I wrong here or was Bill Clinton the President of the United States before President George W. Bush? Are you aware that a lot of these statements were made before George W. Bush was ever elected President of the United States??

Are you really that stupid?? Ok. Never mind...don't answer that question.

P.S. What the f**k is a Presdident?

Bush eats babies slathered in bleu cheese.
Nap, I know that. At least it's not French Dressing.

Am I wrong here or was Bill Clinton the President of the United States before President George W. Bush? Are you aware that a lot of these statements were made before George W. Bush was ever elected President of the United States??

Obviously, you misinterpreted my post. I was referring to the arguments that democrats have come up with since the Iraq war, when things got tough, the insurgents starting making their presence felt, no WMDs were found and the Democrats were looking to attack Bush on any issue at all, which they've done since he first got into Office.

Dammit.

Are you really that stupid?? Ok. Never mind...don't answer that question.

Either I was unable to get my point across, which can happen, or your reading comprehension is rock bottom. I'll have to wait and see on that one, dammit.

P.S. What the f**k is a Presdident?

It's called a typo, I misspelled "president" which does happen from time to time whenever I quickly tap out a reply. Deal with it, dammit.

Sorry Darth. My reading comprehension is rock bottom. No excuse on my part.

You're ok... I'm a dumbass...:thumbs:

Sorry Darth. My reading comprehension is rock bottom. No excuse on my part.

You're ok... I'm a dumbass...:thumbs:


*whew* Thank God, I liked some of your posts I've read, I was really hoping it was a misunderstanding. I hate having to fight people I feel are right on the issues, dammit.

*whew* Thank God, I liked some of your posts I've read, I was really hoping it was a misunderstanding. I hate having to fight people I feel are right on the issues, dammit.
Again Darth, my apologies. It's the Fat Tire...I swear!!

-Disclaimer- Fat Tire is an Amber Ale brewed and bottled by the New Belgium Brewing Co., Fort Collins, Colorado.:D

The most heartbreaking part of the arguments the democrats have come up with, Bush fixed the intelligence, Iraq wasn't a threat, Saddam wasn't working on WMDs, blah, blah, blah, is that the Republicans rolled over and let the Dems walk all over and the Presdident without raising a fuss

You have it wrong in virtually every way humanly possible.

Bush DID fix the intelligence....it is down in writing.

Iraq --we are now fully aware-- WASN'T a threat, and was not within a million miles of being the huge menacing force that Bush and his co-conspirators made it out to be.

Saddam did NOT possess any WMDs and was, according to experts in the field, nowhere near possessing any capability of creating them.

The Dems have not "walked on" B*sh....they have kowtowed to him and gone along with his dismantling of our democracy.

And the fact that the mainstream Media is for all intents and purposes a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP is what allows the lying SOBs in Washington to get away with their constant lies. That and the fact that a huge segment of imbecilic Rightwing cheerleaders in this country refuse to recognize and admit that B*sh and company have been lying through their goddamned teeth to the American People since the first day in office.

It's not the WMDs issue the American population has so quickly forgotten -- it's the 3000 innocent people who were killed by terrorist attacks. Nevermind that the president's actions following 9/11 have prevented us from being attacked on own soil again. That fact is really immaterial now that the Dems feel safe again.

SMW

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Bush-1.jpg

It's not the WMDs issue the American population has so quickly forgotten -- it's the 3000 innocent people who were killed by terrorist attacks. Nevermind that the president's actions following 9/11 have prevented us from being attacked on own soil again. That fact is really immaterial now that the Dems feel safe again.

SMW

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Bush-1.jpg
The quiet little lesson the terrorists leanred was not to attack the U.S. until Bush is out of office. He uses it as a foundation for going into the middle east and rooting out the terrorists.

So they will wait until an idiot Democrat without backbone is in power.

So they will wait until an idiot Democrat without backbone is in power.

:rolleyes:

Past history does not bear out your puerile little prophecy.

I would point out the fact that the last time, they waited until an idiot --and I mean a bona fide idiot-- Republican was in office.

It's not the WMDs issue the American population has so quickly forgotten -- it's the 3000 innocent people who were killed by terrorist attacks. Nevermind that the president's actions following 9/11 have prevented us from being attacked on own soil again. That fact is really immaterial now that the Dems feel safe again.

SMW

It's not that people have forgotten 9/11; it's that they think invading Iraq wasn't necessary to prevent another one.

:rolleyes:

Past history does not bear out your puerile little prophecy.

I would point out the fact that the last time, they waited until an idiot --and I mean a bona fide idiot-- Republican was in office.
Yes and Bush proceeded to teach them their lesson. America hasn't been attacked since--instead the targets have been in Europe, where they perceive no consequences.

Once a President is in power who is on record about not going into the Middle East in force, they will be back. Indeed even now the effect is weaker because the left and its press spokesman have tied the President's hands. (Although a good terror strike now would undo that, so they will probably wait).

Yes and Bush proceeded to teach them their lesson. America hasn't been attacked since--instead the targets have been in Europe, where they perceive no consequences.

While this might be true, how do you know this is the terrorists rationale, if indeed "they" have one?


Once a President is in power who is on record about not going into the Middle East in force, they will be back. Indeed even now the effect is weaker because the left and its press spokesman have tied the President's hands. (Although a good terror strike now would undo that, so they will probably wait).

Again, how do you know the reason we haven't been attacked again?

BTW, wouldn't the invasion of Afghanistan been enough to show them we meant business?

Vile,

The terrorists aren't stupid. When you have the Senate Majority Leader acting like a surrender monkey they know all they have to do is wait and hope a Democrat is elected President.

America hasn't been attacked since--instead the targets have been in Europe, where they perceive no consequences.Do you also believe knocking two sticks together will keep away mountain lions?

Maybe you should tell Frannie about this.

Yes and Bush proceeded to teach them their lesson. America hasn't been attacked since--instead the targets have been in Europe, where they perceive no consequences.
Actually, America hasn't SUCCESSFULLY been attacked since 9/11. They have certainly tried, and didn't seem to care that a Republican was in the White House.

Vile,

The terrorists aren't stupid.

They also aren't a homogenous group with a clear and stable agenda.


When you have the Senate Majority Leader acting like a surrender monkey they know all they have to do is wait and hope a Democrat is elected President.

To be honest Frogger, I ceased being interested in your argument at "surrender monkey". You are an intelligent and literate man Frogger, and I respect your reasoning ability, but I feel compelled to point out that you undermine your own credibility by expressing your views in such terms.

Actually, America hasn't SUCCESSFULLY been attacked since 9/11. They have certainly tried, and didn't seem to care that a Republican was in the White House.
I am curious as to what terror attempts you have in mind.

The fact is that the fate of the Taliban, which today would still rule Afghanistan if 9-11 had not happened, is a lesson that terrorists learned. They still talk loud but they are much less inclined to get America stirred up again, especially since any effect they might have is going to be limited. They are better off aiming terrorism where they can effect things to their benefit.

I don't know what would have happend if an Al Gore had been in the White House, but the idea gives me cold shivers. The same applies to most Democrats and several Republicans.

Bush's big mistake was in declaring victory prematurely and thereby creating false expectations. He should have prepared America for a long slog--as he had been doing before Saddam collapsed.

Of course the managment of the military has been less than admirable, but I don't know that I could have done better.

Nap, I know that. At least it's not French Dressing.
You mean FREEDOM dressing, you traitor! :eek:

Oh yeah and that picture of GWB that smartmouth posted reminded me... I saw a picture of him from when he was young and he was actually kinda hot.

Off-topic :p

:rolleyes:

Past history does not bear out your puerile little prophecy.

I would point out the fact that the last time, they waited until an idiot --and I mean a bona fide idiot-- Republican was in office.

Clinton was a republican?:thumbs:

Clinton was a republican?:thumbs:

Yes ........ in everything but name.

But I was refering to Sept 11, 2001, when B*sh was in office. There was a terrorist attack. Surely you heard about it. It was in all the papers.

Yes ........ in everything but name.

But I was refering to Sept 11, 2001, when B*sh was in office. There was a terrorist attack. Surely you heard about it. It was in all the papers.

So what was the WTC, Somalia, the USS Cole, and the Kenyan embassy? A series of firecracker displays?

They also aren't a homogenous group with a clear and stable agenda.



To be honest Frogger, I ceased being interested in your argument at "surrender monkey". You are an intelligent and literate man Frogger, and I respect your reasoning ability, but I feel compelled to point out that you undermine your own credibility by expressing your views in such terms.


What would you call a Senate leader who says the war is already lost, Vile? Maybe I should refer to him as Senator Quisling in the future.

So what was the WTC, Somalia, the USS Cole, and the Kenyan embassy? A series of firecracker displays?Wow.

FT even underlined the word last.

Most folks would need to make an effort to not understand his meaning.

For you, though, it just comes naturally.

What would you call a Senate leader who says the war is already lost, Vile? Maybe I should refer to him as Senator Quisling in the future.
I think he has sealed his doom as Senator when his term is up. Nevada is not a safe seat for that sort of thing.

One does wonder what goes through a man's head in making such destructive statements. The accusation is that he sees political advantage for the Democrats--I guess he has bought his own propaganda hook line and sinker.

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/04-28-07.jpg

Key Democrats shun general and the need for stronger Iraq role
By Jeffry Gardner
Friday, April 27, 2007


Not only is the war lost, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says, but two of his more influential colleagues in the debate don't even care to hear the Army's current assessment of the situation.

As if Reid's reckless remarks didn't do enough damage - no doubt lifting the spirits of al-Qaida and leftists from France to Hollywood - House Leader Nancy Pelosi and one of the biggest cheerleaders for bailing out of Iraq, Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, didn't even show up this week when the Army's top dog in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, provided his first report to congressional leaders since the troop increase.

Apparently the president's mind isn't the only one made up about war policy.

Historically, House speakers get to pass on such briefings. And Pelosi said later she'd talked with Petraeus before his briefing with Congress. But this wasn't the quarterly General Accounting Office's review of Social Security.

The war is the Democrats' sledgehammer, breaking all big matters into little ones by comparison, and in a town built on appearance, Pelosi and Murtha's absences deserve notice.

Reid repeatedly speaks of President Bush being stubborn or, most recently, "in denial" about the Iraq situation, comparing the Bush White House with that of Lyndon B. Johnson's in the 1960s.

But there are great differences between the conflicts. Chief among them is one even House Democrat Steny Hoyer finally conceded: This war will probably follow us home.

When the Democrats cut funds to the troops in 1974, the only people who paid the price, as predicted, were the South Vietnamese.

We're not going to be that lucky today. Yet it's clear we can't continue in Baghdad as we are currently - not because we can't militarily quash the insurgency, but because, once again, we don't have the political will to do so.

The military surge, Petraeus says, is working - slowly, but the results are encouraging, and we're only now reaching the halfway mark of the increased troop strength.

But, honestly, we need more than a surge. We need a popular and political willingness to fight this as a war and accept all of the peripheral damage, losses and sacrifices that come with fighting a war. That's something few want to admit and fewer will champion.

More troubling is the underlying and growing, it seems, sentiment that Islamic extremists really aren't as vicious and cruel an enemy as, say, the Nazis or the imperial Japanese.

That's because they're not. They're worse. I say that because I don't recall seeing a clip of a Nazi or a Japanese child sawing off the head of a prisoner and then raising it up as a prize - a treat we witnessed recently, courtesy of al-Qaida.

That's the face of the enemy who will leap for joy when we leave Iraq and, inevitably, bring its knives and video cams to our neck of the . . . to our necks.

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/apr/27/jeffry-gardner-dumb-snub/

What would you call a Senate leader who says the war is already lost, Vile? Maybe I should refer to him as Senator Quisling in the future.

Why not just disagree with him without inserting uneccessary name-calling?

Had he said he prefers french fries to home fries I would say I disagree with him but he didn't. He said, "The war is lost." That calls for a stronger response than simply, "I disagree with him." That calls for calling him what he is, a slimey surrender monkey.

Yes dharmabum. All the cheap-shot Bush bashing on this site. The very people you constantly defend were backing the war (or occupation, whatever you are calling it now) in Iraq. Damn It!

I know, I know, OD. People can change their minds.


Just for the record, I'm a big critic of the war in Iraq, and was a big critic before we invaded....and I was arguing my position on these boards! Here are links to those threads if you have any doubt as to my credibility.

http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=1459&highlight=cost+iraq+trillion

http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=1473&highlight=cost+iraq+trillion

What would you call a Senate leader who says the war is already lost....?

A realist.

A truth teller.

Sane.

Had he said he prefers french fries to home fries I would say I disagree with him but he didn't. He (Harry Reid) said, "The war is lost." That calls for a stronger response than simply, "I disagree with him." That calls for calling him what he is, a slimey surrender monkey.

:rolleyes:

Some future Administration will at some point --after they have bilked the pathetically gullible citizenry out of a couple more trillion taxdollars-- pull the plug on Iraq and bring what's left of the troops home. It will at that point be an admission of defeat....but I'm sure they'll find another term to call it.....something more palatable to those clowns whose own self worth is -apparently- measured by the yardstick of their country's military prowess.

This government could of course act as if it were sane, and quit now, with "only" a trillion dollars or so thrown down the black hole of the Pentagon and "only" 3200 soldier's lives sacrified for nothing.....but NO. Noooo, we can't have that. Thanks to the gung ho *Kill em All and Let God Sort Em Out* faction running around screeching --""Everyone who wants to bring the troops home is a surrender monkey!"", the political leadership will stay there --for now-- fighting a lost cause and burn up countless more hundreds of billions and place thousands more soldier's heads on the chopping block so as not to harm those people's tender egos.

Pretty tragic.

I don't think we've "lost" yet, but we've certainly lowered our standards for victory. That could be considered a defeat of sorts.

Victory in Iraq, whatever that entails, is gone. Sorry, but that is a fact.

Yes dharmabum. All the cheap-shot Bush bashing on this site.

There are a few cheap shots among the many, many valid criticisms.


The very people you constantly defend were backing the war (or occupation, whatever you are calling it now) in Iraq. Damn It!

So what?
They were lied to. "Damn it!"


I know, I know, OD. People can change their minds.

Yes, especially after new evidence comes to light that contradicts what they were told by the Administration.