John Kerry wannabe exposed!

[Yonivore]

Thank goodness it was before a Senate Committee hearing. Now, I wonder if the terrorists will abstain from using his lies to torture or coerce their captives.

Is Jimmy Massey telling the truth about Iraq? (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/51DC19D72A063D2F862570B00067A5B7?OpenDocument)

The answer, of course, is No.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It doesn't matter. We shouldn't be there anyway.

[Yonivore]

It doesn't matter. We shouldn't be there anyway.
According to who? France?

[Oh, Gee!!]

According to who? France?


the American public, you know? Us voters

[Yonivore]

the American public, you know? Us voters
At the time of the invasion, the American public, you know, Us voters were behind the invasion of Iraq. So were the majority of Democrat Congressmen.

The only opposition appeared to be from foreign "allies," the U.N. Secretary General's office, and a few strident anti-war lefties and far-right isolationists here.

The only way the opposition saw to change that was to try and convince those who originally favored the action that it was predicated on lies. And, I conceded, the effort to do just that has been somewhat successful.

However, the truth will out. The true nature of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and his WMD designs and capabilities will be known. And, the nature of the opposition and their motives will also be known. Of this I'm confident.

I'm also confident that the President is sincere when he says this is all just "background noise." He is going to stay the course and to what is necessary to see this to a positive end.

What is happening in France will only help his cause. How frustrating that must be to the Islamo-sympathizers in here.

[Nbadan]

So as James Massey goes, so goes acussations of military atrocities committed in Iraq in the name of bringing liberty and freedom, right? Wrong. James Massey may indeed be an opportunist, but that hardly means horrible autrocities weren't committed to innocent Iraqis in the process of libertation.

[Nbadan]

I'm also confident that the President is sincere when he says this is all just "background noise." He is going to stay the course and to what is necessary to see this to a positive end.

:lol

There is no positive end. The President could declare victory today (again) and bring a majority of our boys home and in the long-run it wouldn't make a bit of difference in Iraq, but the cheering sheeple like Yonivore will declare a desperate political victory for Conservatives and W.

[Oh, Gee!!]

However, the truth will out. The true nature of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and his WMD designs and capabilities will be known. And, the nature of the opposition and their motives will also be known. Of this I'm confident.

You've been sold a bill of goods. It's okay to admit you were wrong about Bushie and move on. You just look even more stupid for hanging onto false hope that Dubya did the right thing

[Yonivore]

You've been sold a bill of goods. It's okay to admit you were wrong about Bushie and move on. You just look even more stupid for hanging onto false hope that Dubya did the right thing
You're overgeneralizing...

Exactly what "bill of goods" was I sold? Or, are you just throwing out Michael Moore and Howard Dean talking points again?

Exactly what was I led to believe that isn't true?

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're overgeneralizing...

Exactly what "bill of goods" was I sold? Or, are you just throwing out Michael Moore and Howard Dean talking points again?

Exactly what was I led to believe that isn't true?

No WMDS
No ties to 911

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yoni--Don't bother digging up some wacko's blog entry that lends support to the reason for the war. I've made up my mind on this one already.

[Yonivore]

No WMDS
False.

Nothing fitting the leftist definition of WMD has been found. As has been reported over and over again. There were stockpiles of dual-purpose pesticide (the base ingredient for a nerve agent), stored next to the chemical catalyst and an ammo dump full of STS missiles capable of carrying a liquid payload.

What other possible purpose could there have been for this arrangement? Seriously, I'd like to know what you think of this particular discovery and how it reflects on Iraq's possession of WMDs.

Just because they weren't all assembled doesn't mean they weren't WMD's.

You're the one that can't accept the truth of the matter. Tell me this. Who would it take reporting these facts as having found WMD in Iraq for you to believe it?

No ties to 911
Never claimed outside the minds of the left.

However, ties to those who executed 9/11 have been established. That Iraq was a terrorist state has been established. That Iraq is as much a part of the war on terrorism, escalated by the events of 9/11, as Afghanistan has been established.

No one ever claimed Iraq was directly involved in the attacks on September 11, 2001. However, that they were involved with terrorist elements who did plan it and are engaged in similar activities around the world is indisputable.

[Ocotillo]

Why is the administration not loudly proclaiming that these WMDs have been found? Nevermind what someone on a message board thinks of this unlinked "discovery", what does the Busheviks think? I guess their definition of WMDs is closer to leftist's than Yonivore's.

Cheney danced around and created the impression there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. While he never came out and categorically claimed the connection he was coy and referred to a Czech meeting between Iraqi intellegence and the hijacker Atta. The intent was clear. Dupe the rubes in this country into supporting a pre-emptive war by hinting that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

It worked. Two thirds of the country believed the Cheney "hints".

[Mr. Peabody]

Never claimed outside the minds of the left.

However, ties to those who executed 9/11 have been established. That Iraq was a terrorist state has been established. That Iraq is as much a part of the war on terrorism, escalated by the events of 9/11, as Afghanistan has been established.

No one ever claimed Iraq was directly involved in the attacks on September 11, 2001. However, that they were involved with terrorist elements who did plan it and are engaged in similar activities around the world is indisputable.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html)

While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, administration officials have also suggested that there had been cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda that went beyond contacts. Bush last year called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda." Just this Monday, Cheney said Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."
________
HOW TO ROLL A JOINT (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

[Yonivore]

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html)

While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, administration officials have also suggested that there had been cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda that went beyond contacts. Bush last year called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda." Just this Monday, Cheney said Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."
Yeah, and?

Saying that Iraq is an integral part of the Global War on Terror by virtue of their association with those who attacked us on September 11, 2001 is not the same as saying Iraq was complicit in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

That's kind of like saying that since Germany was not involved in the December 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor they had no role and should not be a part of our efforts in fighting global fascism during WWII. After all, Germany didn't attack us? Did they?

World War II was a global war on fascism. This is a global war on terrorism. Iraq is involved -- whether they played a specific role in 9/11 or not.

That's the point.

[Yonivore]

what i can't believe is that hardcore republicans like yonivore aren't more pissed off at the administration about being made to look the fool about iraq
How so?

It appears that France is being made to look the fool right now. And, whether you want to believe it or continue to deny it...France is fighting for its life right now not from a bunch of disenfranchised "youths" but a well organized Islamic Jihad.

300 cities and spreading. It also appears to have spilled over into Germany today.

We are doing the right thing in Iraq. You're the fool.

[Yonivore]

germany attacked u.s. boats
Iraq shot at U.S. planes...for 12 years.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yeah, and?

Saying that Iraq is an integral part of the Global War on Terror by virtue of their association with those who attacked us on September 11, 2001 is not the same as saying Iraq was complicit in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

That's kind of like saying that since Germany was not involved in the December 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor they had no role and should not be a part of our efforts in fighting global fascism during WWII. After all, Germany didn't attack us? Did they?

World War II was a global war on fascism. This is a global war on terrorism. Iraq is involved -- whether they played a specific role in 9/11 or not.

That's the point.

No, the point is that the administration mislead the American people. You can equivocate all you want, but the fact is that the administration implied time and time again that there was a direct link between Iraq and the events in New York. To now defend these actions now by saying "Well they never expressly said it" is ridiculous. It just goes to show that people will go to absurd ends to try and prove that the administration hasn't been dishonest with the American public.
________
Children zoloft (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)

[gtownspur]

^^yes ofcourse since your dumbass equates a riot with a war.

[Vashner]

the American public, you know? Us voters
WTF? Bush won re-election dude... wow how many bong hits did you take?
Of course people that opposed him should not be quite. But they need to accept that Bush is not going anywhere and our soldiers WILL have victory this time. This will be no vietnam scurry away. It's going to be on Bush's original terms of Iraqi security forces standing up.

[Oh, Gee!!]

please read all posts in a thread before responding


:lol

poor, stupid Gtown.

I'd sig this if I didn't already sig the other village idiot

[Yonivore]

No, the point is that the administration mislead the American people. You can equivocate all you want, but the fact is that the administration implied time and time again that there was a direct link between Iraq and the events in New York. To now defend these actions now by saying "Well they never expressly said it" is ridiculous. It just goes to show that people will go to absurd ends to try and prove that the administration hasn't been dishonest with the American public.

No, the point is the administration explicitly said time and time again that Iraq was integral to the global war on terror. And that remains true.

That you looked at a pear tree and saw apples isn’t my fault.

[Oh, Gee!!]

http://www.soonerthought.com/archives/president-bush-policies.jpg

[Mr. Peabody]

No, the point is the administration explicitly said time and time again that Iraq was integral to the global war on terror. And that remains true.

That you looked at a pear tree and saw apples isn?t my fault.

You must have quite the ego to think that anyone is even talking about you. What the hell do you have to do with any of this? I was talking about the administration.

And if the American public "saw apples" it's because W was dressed like goddam Johnny Appleseed when he made his case to the people.

Why the need to defend these guys? They keep screwing up and you keep defending them. :rolleyes

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
________
Portable Vaporizer Ratings (http://vaporizerinfo.com/)

[Yonivore]

You must have quite the ego to think that anyone is even talking about you. What the hell do you have to do with any of this? I was talking about the administration.
Fine. It's noone's fault but your own.


And if the American public "saw apples" it's because W was dressed like goddam Johnny Appleseed when he made his case to the people.
Obviously, I disagree. Furthermore, unlike you, I never heard this administration say that Iraq was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. I did, however, hear them tie Iraq in with the rather complex concept of global terrorism. They made their case, quite compellingly, that Iraq was a linchpin in winning the war -- not because it settled any kind of justice for what happened on 9/11 (that was happening in Afghanistan) -- but, because Iraq was the logical place (due to his record of abuses and the corruption of the OFF program among many of the reasons) to try and establish a democratic base of operation in the Middle East.

I know, that's a little nuanced for your simple "Bush lied, people died" brain. Bug, geopolitics are complicated. I'm sorry.


Why the need to defend these guys? They keep screwing up and you keep defending them. :rolleyes
You'd better hope they don't fail.

What would you have them do now. Seriously? Even if Iraq was a mistake (Democratic Senator Rockefeller is now saying he made a mistake in voting for the invasion), what would you have them do? Leave?

Let's just go on the compromise premise that it wasn't an intentional mistake. Bush didn't mislead us into war (I mean, a lot of Democrats saw the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion); and I'll give up, for the moment, that there were no WMD's -- it was all a big mistake.

Once we toppled Baghdad, and threw out the Ba'athist regime, only to find out we were wrong (even though it was the stated U.S. policy to do just that, since 1998) and that there was no WMD's. What should we have done?


There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
No shit!

[gtownspur]

please read all posts in a thread before responding

You were comparing France's riots to war moron! I was responding to your post. But i guess.......nm. It's useless teaching a dog to quit chasing it's own ass.

[gtownspur]

:lol

poor, stupid Gtown.

I'd sig this if I didn't already sig the other village idiot

Take this advice dearly. DOnt ever sig anyone. No matter how stupid you may think their comment was. Having someone's qoute under your moronic words would immediately validate anything they said.

[BronxCowboy]

Take this advice dearly. DOnt ever sig anyone. No matter how stupid you may think their comment was. Having someone's qoute under your moronic words would immediately validate anything they said.

What insight. :rolleyes

[BronxCowboy]

They made their case, quite compellingly, that Iraq was a linchpin in winning the war -- not because it settled any kind of justice for what happened on 9/11 (that was happening in Afghanistan) -- but, because Iraq was the logical place (due to his record of abuses and the corruption of the OFF program among many of the reasons) to try and establish a democratic base of operation in the Middle East.

While I agree that you have basically articulated the reason that our administration chose to invade Iraq, what you're basically saying is that we needed Iraq as a tactical cornerstone to controlling the Middle East and that the reason Iraq was selected was that nobody liked Saddam anyway so we could get away with it. You do realize, of course that this is neither ethical nor legal grounds for overthrowing another country. Not that you'll ever admit it.

[Yonivore]

While I agree that you have basically articulated the reason that our administration chose to invade Iraq, what you're basically saying is that we needed Iraq as a tactical cornerstone to controlling the Middle East and that the reason Iraq was selected was that nobody liked Saddam anyway so we could get away with it. You do realize, of course that this is neither ethical nor legal grounds for overthrowing another country. Not that you'll ever admit it.
I could have worded that better. My intent was to say that a base from which democratic principals could spread to the greater Middle East. That is an objective that has been articulated by the administration. Once the greater middle east sees what can be accomplished in what used to be in the baddest house on the block, they'd be encouraged to free up their own societies. This is, to some degree, gaining currency in some areas. Egypt, Lebanon, Syria is fracturing, Saudi Arabia is becoming more compliant, Libya is capitulating, Iran is having trouble containing their own "westernized" population...

I further believe the only reason things aren't moving at a faster pace is due to the domestic resistance to our efforts there. So long as the Mad Mullahs and theocrats of the Middle East believe there is a chance our own "progressive" idiots here at home will defeat the administration's goals in the middle east (a 'la Vietnam), they'll continue to be resistant to change.

If we'd ever unify over the necessity of dragging the Middle East from the 13th to the 21st century -- either by force or diplomacy -- it's be over, and quickly.

The administration has never said they were establishing a base of military operations.

However, I have opined on occassion that it makes sense that, once Iraq is stable -- and, make no mistake, it's headed that way (we're building an amusement park for tourists for gosh sakes) -- that we'd enter into a formal agreement to establish American bases there, just as we did in Post WWII Germany.

[Yonivore]

You know, Nazi and Communist propagandists were on to something in teaching that if you repeat a lie -- even an outrageous one -- often enough people will begin to believe it.

This principle holds true even if you are guilty of precisely the same thing as those you accuse (talking up Saddam's WMDs) and your complicity is conclusively demonstrated on audiotape and videotape.

When your obvious duplicity in this affair is illuminated by reference to the uncontroverted fact that when you made similar claims about Saddam's WMDs you had access to the same intelligence as the administration, you simply say the president pressured the intelligence community to doctor the data.

When this specious assertion is contradicted by unequivocal findings of three bipartisan investigative commissions, you simply demand, with righteous indignation, a fourth one. And you dramatize that by pulling a stunt like Rule 21.

In the meantime, you also charge that President Bush cherry-picked certain intelligence and deliberately relied on other discredited intelligence in order to bolster his case for war against Iraq. And you do that knowing that it is you who are retrospectively cherry-picking the evidence and presenting it as irrefutable proof that Bush lied.

For example, you triumphantly cite a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated February 2002, stating it was probable that an Al Qaeda informant had fabricated his claim that Iraq trained Al Qaeda in the use of biological and chemical weapons. You smugly point out that since this DIA document predated, by months, public statements by President Bush and his team in which they referenced the "impeached" terrorist's claim in support of their assertion of an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, Bush had to have lied.

What neither you nor your New York Times enablers divulge is that the CIA manifestly didn't agree with the DIA's assessment. (CIA Director George Tenet, a year after the DIA report, testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq trained Al Qaeda in document forgery, bomb making, poisons and gases.)

As another example, you figure if you obfuscate artfully enough, the public will not realize that the infamous 16-word assertion in the president's State of the Union address that the Brits learned Saddam tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger is as true today as when he uttered it.

When confronted with the annoying detail that Bill Clinton likewise made bold assertions about Saddam's WMDs, you shrewdly calculate that this fact can actually be twisted in your favor. After all, though Clinton knew Saddam was hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, using them against us and distributing them to our terrorist enemies also to use against us, he chose -- in his infinite wisdom -- not to invade Iraq -- apart from his cosmetic cruise missile volleys. And, since the Iraq War has proven to be such a delightful failure in your eyes, you declare that Clinton is vindicated for having chosen not to take out Saddam. Thus, those sour lemons are converted to lemonade.

Though you insist your foreign policy is guided both by humanitarian and national security interests, you are nevertheless unmoved by the remarkably positive developments that have occurred in Iraq as a result of our intervention. You essentially pooh pooh our deposition of the murderous dictator Saddam and even more so the Iraqi people's historic progress toward constitutional self-rule. And, despite the terrorists' single-minded focus on preventing the democratization of Iraq, you still deny it's part of the War on Terror. The fact that we've sustained casualties apparently negates in your mind any good that has accrued, giving rise to the obvious question: Is any foreign policy cause worth dying for?

You also must conveniently ignore that no matter what 20/20 hindsight may reveal after the fact, reasonable people agree that Saddam had WMDs, used them on his own people, had a legal obligation to prove he'd disposed of them and failed to meet that burden, choosing instead to submit a 12,000-page document of lies. You must flagrantly disregard the inconvenient, but undeniable fact that Saddam could have prevented an American attack if he'd complied with his treaties, UN resolutions, and the ceasefire agreement, cooperated with weapons inspectors and proven he'd disposed of his WMDs as required. By flipping us off instead, he invited the War. You must also ignore that virtually all the world's intelligence agencies believed Saddam still had WMD stockpiles. Did Bush trick all of them, too?

You must steadfastly maintain the Libby indictment directly taints Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the entire administration, even though Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald did not issue any indictments on underlying crimes and explicitly denied the indictment speaks to the propriety of the war. Indeed, using liberal logic you are utterly undeterred by the lack of indictments as you clamor for a presidential "housecleaning." Such a disingenuous, nonsensical strategy might just fool people into believing your false claims that the administration "outed" Valerie Plame to punish her "useful idiot" husband and advance your fantasy of criminalizing the war and, ultimately, impeaching President Bush.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Take this advice dearly. DOnt ever sig anyone. No matter how stupid you may think their comment was. Having someone's qoute under your moronic words would immediately validate anything they said.


Thanks for the new sig. You're gold, Gtown. Gold!!

[gtownspur]

^^Hey whatever it takes to help you gain confidence to ask out your shemale cousin.