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.
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.
poor, stupid Gtown.
I'd sig this if I didn't already sig the other village idiot
What insight.
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.
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) do ent 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 do ent 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 do ent 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 -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 cons utional 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 do ent 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 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.
Thanks for the new sig. You're gold, Gtown. Gold!!
^^Hey whatever it takes to help you gain confidence to ask out your shemale cousin.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote