When did the West get inhabited by a bunch of Pussies?

[whottt]

Since you can't even argue anything different, I win that argument by default. Thanks for your unspoken stipulation of this point you won't even try to counter.

What?

It's almost happening with Iraq now. You need to pay attention.So you are agreeing that he's just going to lob some cruise missiles and drop a couple of bombs in there? Damn, you need to make up your mind for once.Why can't you just answer these questions when they are put to you?

It's being attempted...it won't succeed.

Um...

#1. You underestimate the cruise missle power that we have...as well as the ability to coordinate and survey Iran for the purpose these attacks.

2. You also seem to have not paid much attention to the Previous Two Iraq conflicts, and what those, "few cruise missles and bombs" did to Iraq.

You are even more clueless to the fact that Iran is more vulnerable than Iraq was to airstrikes, and that our airforce and air power capabilities are even more powerful and experienced than they were at the time of both IRaq Wars.


AND FINALLY, YOU ARE COMPLETELY ING CLUESS AS TO WHAT ISRAEL HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO TO EVERY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH JUST A FEW BOMBS AND CRUISE MISSLES, FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

In summary...

1. You're wrong about the level of attacks the President can launch upon Iran without Jack approval from Congress.

2. You're wrong about what those cruise missles would be capable of even if if your statement were accurate.

3. You're wrong if you don't think Iran would make the decision about whether or not we are going to war for US, over just a few cruise missles...then again, I realize Trini is an idiot and you don't.

All you can do is stall. That's competely weak.Yeah, we've all heard your grand theory of mideast conquest. The great thing about making up is you can cite yourself as a source.

I don't want to conquer the middle east, I like the Middle East culture, I like what they have contributed to society, I am paticularly fond of the Pre Mohammed Mid Eastern Culture and the history of Egypt was one of the things that inspired me in my choice of education. I have been studying this stuff my entire life and I didn't form my opinions on it because of Keith Olberman's latest blogging.


I want to rid it of it's oppressive and unelightened ruling class that is breeding a growing apocalyptic threat, and causing mass emmigration of it's indigenous and long time inhabitants...that was breeding it before Bush was even out of college, that continued to breed it...


The threat is so great, is so entrenched in the mid-east culture, that I am willing to endorse the USE nukes to end it...and I am damn sure willing to endorse the threat of using nukes.

What is America saying now after it voted Bush's party out of office because of the fiasco in Iraq? Why are you in denial about that?

It's saying that it's time to return to business as usual, and that it's a moderate country that isn't comfortable to throwing that much power to one political party for longer than 4 years under anything but extreme cir stances.


What does it tell you about the out of touchness of your stance that the most you can cite in terms of victory is a return to the basically traditional opposition congress and Presidency structure.

I don't want a ing one side structure...except for the purpose of executing this war.


I am pro stem cell research...I am pro choice, I want alternative fuel sources and for us to continue to pursue techonogical advancement.

It's just you guys offered complete as alternatives...

I don't care how bad you think Bush has been...your guy wanted to cut and run, and suck the s of European leaders that aren't even in power any more, and a UN body that is now facing criminal investation.



Just because the Anti-Americans have all the no life protestors, doesn't mean they are they majority...

Not here...

No in the UK

Not in Australia

Not even in Germany....

Poll lol

I'm sorry Bush squandered all the goodwill that the US was given after the 9/11 attacks.

Good will of whom? The American People...

Well it's not like he's the greatest President ever...but thanks to the abject failure of the party of Rosie and Moore...he was the best we could do.

I'm sorry he never finished the job of killing the real terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So you're saying you expected this problem to be solved in 4 or 5 years:?

You think the mindset that we face was limited to Pakistan and Afghanistan?


The major exporters are Saudi, Pakistan and Egypt...none of whom we can take out, for various reasons...but what we can do is isolate them and expose them for the crappy governments they are....well Pak is trying.

I'm sorry he neatly fulfilled Osama's propoganda by invading and occupying Iraq in the first place, and I'm really sorry he didn't take it seriously enough to send enough troops to do it right and I'm sorry he sent a bunch of inexperienced political hacks to rebuild the country in three month shifts. The problem is he's not sorry and can't even admit to the most obvious of his ups. Neither can you.

So you expected this to be over in like...2 months?


I say if everything had gone perfect, from the day this began...we'll be lucky if it's over in our lifetimes...

This is not a shorterm thing...you don't erase what was has been happening to the mid-east for the last 100 years, in 2 months Chump.

It's going to take decades.


Unless you want a nuclear cleansing...which I favor if we get nuked. Damn straight I do.

Bush continually ed up on a monumental scale after 9/11 and lost his popular support, yet you think he still enjoys a mandate from the people.

Um.....he got a rare mandate to begin with...those aren't common in thise country.


I think 06 was just a market correction...

I didn't want us going to totally conservative...do you? Were you comfortable with that? I wasn't. Especially since they seemed more concerned with the party that didn't put them in power than the party that did, as far as their public statements.

You are in severe denial just because there is a slowdown in the killing of muslims. It's quite sad to see. You used to come close to making sense in your arguments.

Yawn...

[ChumpDumper]

What?

Another stall.

It's being attempted...it won't succeed.

It will if Bushy starts another war.

#1. You underestimate the cruise missle power that we have...as well as the ability to coordinate and survey Iran for the purpose these attacks.

I know exactly what cruise missiles can and can't do.

2. You also seem to have not paid much attention to the Previous Two Iraq conflicts, and what those, "few cruise missles and bombs" did to Iraq.

You seem to ignore the fact that ground forces were used both times. It's entirely true that Desert Fox almost took out Saddam with cruise missiles alone, but that was thanks to the fact that his military power had been reduced by two thirds already. You were in denial about that little fact as well -- to say nothing of the fact that Iran is in no such state.

You are even more clueless to the fact that Iran is more vulnerable than Iraq was to airstrikes, and that our airforce and air power capabilities are even more powerful and experienced than they were at the time of both IRaq Wars.

Yeah, thanks General. We're all impressed. Where are your links to this?

AND FINALLY, YOU ARE COMPLETELY ING CLUESS AS TO WHAT ISRAEL HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO TO EVERY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH JUST A FEW BOMBS AND CRUISE MISSLES, FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

So now you are calling for a limited conflict with Iran? What exactly are you asking for? You've been all over the map these past four years -- kill everyone, only kill the leaders, nuke Mecca, just lob some cruise missiles, invade Iran? Why don't you just sticky your manifesto to the top of this forum so you won't be able to change your position every thread.

1. You're wrong about the level of attacks the President can launch upon Iran without Jack approval from Congress.

Thanks for telling me why Bush got congressional appoval to invade Iraq.

2. You're wrong about what those cruise missles would be capable of

Nah, i know what they can do and more importantly, what they can't.

3. You're wrong if you don't think Iran would make the decision about whether or not we are going to war for US, over just a few cruise missles...then again, I realize Trini is an idiot and you don't.

Actually, you said we were going to war over the British hostages. You were stunningly wrong about that. You say the Iranian president is suicidal and wants to die in a conflict with the US which he will do anything to bring about -- except when you say he is afraid of having his ass kicked by the US and gave up the hostages out of fear. Once again, make up your ing mind.

It's saying that it's time to return to business as usual, and that it's a moderate country that isn't comfortable to throwing that much power to one political party for longer than 4 years under anything but extreme cir stances.

But you just said that Bush had a mandate to finish it by any means he chose. Which is it?

What does it tell you about the out of touchness of your stance that the most you can cite in terms of victory is a return to the basically traditional opposition congress and Presidency structure.

Um, it completely proves what I have said all along. I didn't even have to change my argument in every thread like you have.

I don't want a ing one side structure...except for the purpose of executing this war.

Too bad Bush has proven almost completely incompetent in his one-sided execution of this war.

I don't care how bad you think Bush has been...your guy wanted to cut and run, and suck the s of European leaders that aren't even in power any more, and a UN body that is now facing criminal investation.

Kerry wasn't my guy. I said he wouldn't win and I am on record as saying we have to stay in Iraq for awhile.

Just because the Anti-Americans have all the no life protestors, doesn't mean they are they majority...

Nor do the majority share your misguided bloodlust. They simply see that Bush ed up. You don't.

Good will of whom? The American People...

Not only the American people, the international community as well. Bush had a unique historical opportunity and he blew it horribly.

So you're saying you expected this problem to be solved in 4 or 5 years:?

No straw men please. I expected Bush to keep the proper priorities and not neglect or ingore the real goals of the war on terror to fulfill Paul Wolfowitz's wet dreams -- and even if he did I expected him to take the reconstruction of Iraq and by extension his attempted transformation of the middle east far more seriously than he in fact did.

The major exporters are Saudi, Pakistan and Egypt...none of whom we can take out, for various reasons.

What various reasons? You know the only real reason you have ever produced for going into Iraq when we did was because it was easy (though you will change your story if the discussion happens to be about the US military's performance). Is that what policy should be based on -- what is easy?

I say if everything had gone perfect, from the day this began...we'll be lucky if it's over in our lifetimes...

I don't disagree and never did with that kind of assessment. Your problem is you have never ever thought anything has gone wrong or has been done badly in the past six years.

Um.....he got a rare mandate to begin with...those aren't common in thise country.

Three skyscrapers collapsing in Manhattan isn't common in this country either. Bush's mistake was thinking the mandate was given to him because of him.

I think 06 was just a market correction...

I think 06 was a referendum on Iraq. There's no other way to explain the gains made by Democrats in traditionally Republican areas.

Yawn...

Yawn, indeed. Wake us when you change your story again.

[whottt]

Hey Chump...do me a favor before I kick your ass on this...

If you are going to make long posts like I do...would you mind inserting some spaces for quoting purposes as I am kind enough to do for you?

Seriously...select quote on one of your posts and then on one of mine...see the difference?

One is easy to reply too and separate for the purposes of attacking an argument...the other is just a huge block of ...

Anyway...it'll take me a good hour of stalling to organize that...got other stuff to do first.


Again...any time you want to give me a list of war authorization from congress over last 100 years or so...by all means do so.


You won't have much to do after WWII...yes, you got owned that badly.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't expect you to respond in any meaningful way, so why should I bother?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't expect you to respond in any meaningful way, so why should I bother?

Chump I wouldn't waste my time either with Whott..his incoherent rambling is a bit tiresome. All of his posts end with he owning that particular poster for no other reason than he says so..

[whottt]

Chump I wouldn't waste my time either with Whott..his incoherent rambling is a bit tiresome. All of his posts end with he owning that particular poster for no other reason than he says so..

No...you get owned factually. It's the only way it can be done...you're just too lazy to check out whether or not the rhetoric you have sold out too is accurate...

I don't mean accurate depending your interpretation, I mean accurate in any way shape or form.


Oh and...I bet you're the one person in America who would re-elect Cater...

You probably think his peaceful approach was effective.


The Iranians gave up these troops so quickly, without getting anything they asked for, because they fear Bush...as I sure as would if I was mid-eastern leader...he may not be smart, he may not be charismatic, but one thing he will do is bomb the living out of people...

That had more do to with this quick release than anything....

[whottt]

It will if Bushy starts another war.

No, it won't.

I know exactly what cruise missiles can and can't do.

No....you know what Clinton did with cruise missles...and that's it. IF you think they are described as minor.

You seem to ignore the fact that ground forces were used both times. It's entirely true that Desert Fox almost took out Saddam with cruise missiles alone, but that was thanks to the fact that his military power had been reduced by two thirds already. You were in denial about that little fact as well -- to say nothing of the fact that Iran is in no such state.

Good lord...you didn't watch either Iraq War...both were won in a matter of hours by bombing...the ground troops in the first war were just cleanp...in the second war they were a necessity.
Israel whipped the ass of just about every one of it's neighbors with nary a ground troop...

Yeah, thanks General. We're all impressed. Where are your links to this?

Idiot...you can't link common sense...I just suggest you read up on how our technology works...not to mention the things our military does covertly.
IF you don't think we've been running reconnasiance missions in and out of Iran since the day we overthrew Saddam...you're an idiot.
We have much better intelligence now than we did after Clinton let it deteriorate for 8 years.
I mean this is like me trying to explain nuclear physics to a kindergartener.
Dude...we've been running reconnasiance missions in and out of the remotes area of Iran every since we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan...we've been mapping it....we've been organizing resistance within Iran for when the fall takes place, we've been organizing and supporting the anti government forces in IRan and determining courses for smulling arms and weaponry into the country. You are just ing stupid Chump...and no our government isn't going to announce it.

So now you are calling for a limited conflict with Iran? What exactly are you asking for?

No pandering...taking those leaders out, either militarily, or popular overthrow. The threat of military force is useless in encouraging any type of non violent overthrow, if the targets don't believe you will use it...

You've been all over the map these past four years -- kill everyone, only kill the leaders, nuke Mecca, just lob some cruise missiles, invade Iran? Why don't you just sticky your manifesto to the top of this forum so you won't be able to change your position every thread.

My manifesto is simple...Remove the leaders and you remove the cheif enablers and cultivators of terrorism...
If we have to kill everyone to do that, then that's what we have to do...
Because you contrary to what you ing idiots, think, they don't just hate us because of Bush...

Nah, i know what they can do and more importantly, what they can't.

No...you don't. You really don't know ...because you haven't seen it officially announced anywhere...
Just like you didn't know Manu didn't like coming off the bench, calling him a pussy if that were true, and I did.
And he says it with regularity now that he didn't like it...
See...you're obtuse, that's not my fault, nor does it mean I'm wrong.

Actually, you said we were going to war over the British hostages. You were stunningly wrong about that.

Well since the President of Iran released them before even the British knew it was being done...I'd say we didn't get the chance.
And no...I didn't say we were, I said he'll find out Carter isn't in the WhiteHouse anymore...I was right.
Even if he didn't realize it...his handlers did.

You say the Iranian president is suicidal and wants to die in a conflict with the US which he will do anything to bring about

Um...he says that too.

-- except when you say he is afraid of having his ass kicked by the US and gave up the hostages out of fear. Once again, make up your ing mind.

Ehh...I never said he wanted to lose, which he will before he's got nukes.
And no I don't think he's scared..and I'm sorry if I missaid that...
His rulers are scared...those are those leaders that I am always talking about threatening to get them to control their attack dogs...it works. Trini will get rid of them in time though.
I gurantee you if Saudi thinks we're going to nuke them you won't see a Saudi Terrorist nuking an American city...I gurantee it. Not even Usama.

But you just said that Bush had a mandate to finish it by any means he chose. Which is it?

He had the mandate...it was rescinded because he was too busy pandering to political opposition that would never support him.
I didn't vote for a single Republican in 06...in fact I didn't vote at all, and would have been surprised had the Repubs maintained control...even if the wars were over.

Um, it completely proves what I have said all along. I didn't even have to change my argument in every thread like you have.

I haven't ever had to change my argument.
You've never had a clear argument...although you are getting better about it...which is one of the reasons I have been taking it easy on you...even dishing out alittle pity.

Too bad Bush has proven almost completely incompetent in his one-sided execution of this war. Quote:

Oh we're a long way from incompetence...mistakes have been made, but they are near as big as you think.
The other countries surrounding Iraq are going to make it difficult for any transition, because they don't want a Democracy there idiot...
They were always going to funnel or organize some kind of resistance...
Iran doesn't want to bea Democracy Chump....nor do they want a big US ally living right next door...And Syria really doesn't.
Nothing could have changed that...

Kerry wasn't my guy. I said he wouldn't win and I am on record as saying we have to stay in Iraq for awhile. Quote:

Good, then shut the up and stop ing about the war.

Nor do the majority share your misguided bloodlust. They simply see that Bush ed up. You don't. Quote:

Link, to the perfect war?

Not only the American people, the international community as well. Bush had a unique historical opportunity and he blew it horribly. Quote:

Damn you're stupid...the Europe elite have been anti-american for 60 ing years...This is an economic war, with Europe, with the Middle East, for determining whether the relations in the future with the EU are Pro or Anti Atlantacist...and whos going to get paid by China and India.

No straw men please. I expected Bush to keep the proper priorities and not neglect or ingore the real goals of the war on terror to fulfill Paul Wolfowitz's wet dreams -- and even if he did I expected him to take the reconstruction of Iraq and by extension his attempted transformation of the middle east far more seriously than he in fact did. Quote:

Yeah...you think Afghanistan is where all the terrorists were...you were wrong. If 911 wasn't already proof of that.

What various reasons? You know the only real reason you have ever produced for going into Iraq when we did was because it was easy (though you will change your story if the discussion happens to be about the US military's performance). Is that what policy should be based on -- what is easy? Quote:

We can't go to war with Pakistan #1...because Musharraf actually is attempting to un that country...#2. Because they have nukes. #3. Because they have a big ass military...
We can't go into Saudi because it will destroy the World Economy, alienate an outwardly pro US regime, piss off every muslim in the world.
Oh sure...we could defeat Suadi easily in a conventional war...our ing milit6ary was sitting there.
But politically and economically that would us...however, if we get nuked, it, priorities change.
Egypt is a corrupt regime but they are so corrupt they actually have corrupted their corruption and usually wind up one of our most important allies...
But they still have ty government...
I mean our peace with themand Israel is basically bribing them....

I don't disagree and never did with that kind of assessment. Your problem is you have never ever thought anything has gone wrong or has been done badly in the past six years.

False...I just don't think it's been a disaster, and It hink the rousing discontent serves those that are trying to beat us politically(the only way they can win this war).

Three skyscrapers collapsing in Manhattan isn't common in this country either. Bush's mistake was thinking the mandate was given to him because of him. Quote:

Ehh...I can concede the point...but I think his mistake was trying to turn into a diplomat and unifier after proving himself to be an uncompromising asshole....I was voting for the uncompromising asshole, not the failed diplomat. In any case...
Bush's ups aren't near as bad as the Democrats that have kept him in power. The majority didn't vote for Bush in 2000...they did in 04...after no WMD, after unilaterially invading a country, without UN support...
THey voted for that Bush..they gave him that congress, then all of a sudden...he let the haters get to him...

I think 06 was a referendum on Iraq. There's no other way to explain the gains made by Democrats in traditionally Republican areas. Quote:

No, the refernedum was in 04...in 06 no one cares but the Democrats...and it's not like the country wants totally conservative leadership, you idiot.
They once put Clinton in office...what, do you think everyone changes hard wired political party preference every decade?
No idiot...the moderates rule.
[quote
Yawn, indeed. Wake us when you change your story again.[/quote]

Yeeee

Awwwn


Don't stall with your response...but I know you don't have the balls to take every point I made in this post on individually...becausde it's the kind of liberal you are.

Now go protest a US Soldier or Burn a flag or something...

[ChumpDumper]

we've been organizing resistance within Iran for when the fall takes place, we've been organizing and supporting the anti government forces in IRan and determining courses for smulling arms and weaponry into the country.

So now you work for the CIA and the State Department. What a career you're having.

I'd believe all of this if we had done anything similar in Iraq before we invaded. We didn't. You give Bush way too much credit for you just assumed happened in Iraq and is happening for Iran. Unfortunately your made up master plan is just that -- something you made up and admitted you made up. The record proves that wasn't the case in Iraq and you don't even know it. That's the funny thing about you, facts don't affect your argument one bit because you don't care about them. You don't care about reality. You live in a fantasy world. It's so bad you don't even vote now, but somehow take credit for the 06 elections that have rendered Bush the lamest duck in half a century -- and argue that it won't affect his ability to fight his current wars or start new ones. You are in severe denial of everything that has happened since 2003, even Bush snapped out of that a little. You never will because your fragile ego can't handle accepting just how wrong you have been. Don't worry, your denial doesn't change reality, so you can continue living in your fantasy land. Leave the real world to people who can actually perceive it.

[johngateswhiteley]

when feminists appeared.

[ChumpDumper]

No, it won't.

No....you know what Clinton did with cruise missles...and that's it. IF you think they are described as minor.

Quite the contrary. There are simply limits to what they can achieve. Bush knew that. Why don't you?

Good lord...you didn't watch either Iraq War...both were won in a matter of hours by bombing...the ground troops in the first war were just cleanp...in the second war they were a necessity.
Israel whipped the ass of just about every one of it's neighbors with nary a ground troop...

but your wish is to overthrow governments. That isnt' done with air power alone. Bush proved that. Why can't you accept that?

Idiot...you can't link common sense...I just suggest you read up on how our technology works...not to mention the things our military does covertly.

I've read plenty. i want specific links where you got your information, General. Everyone noticed you stopped doing that a long time ago.

IF you don't think we've been running reconnasiance missions in and out of Iran since the day we overthrew Saddam...you're an idiot.
We have much better intelligence now than we did after Clinton let it deteriorate for 8 years.

Sure there's plenty of intel about Iran. We had plenty for Iraq too. remember how sure you were that WMDs were there? That's intel. Intel <> fact.

No...you don't. You really don't know ...because you haven't seen it officially announced anywhere..

I haven't seen what cruise missiles can do officially announced anywhere? You're losing it, pal.

Well since the President of Iran released them before even the British knew it was being done...I'd say we didn't get the chance.
And no...I didn't say we were, I said he'll find out Carter isn't in the WhiteHouse anymore...I was right.
Even if he didn't realize it...his handlers did.

Um...he says that too.

So you officially won't make up your mind as to whether Iran is afraid of being us of suicidal and spoiling for a fight. You reserve the right to flip-flop at any time like. Kerryesque.

Ehh...I never said he wanted to lose, which he will before he's got nukes.
And no I don't think he's scared..and I'm sorry if I missaid that...
His rulers are scared...those are those leaders that I am always talking about threatening to get them to control their attack dogs...it works. Trini will get rid of them in time though.

So now he's not even in control. Make up your ing mind for once. Who is leading Iran and what do they want?

I gurantee you if Saudi thinks we're going to nuke them you won't see a Saudi Terrorist nuking an American city...I gurantee it. Not even Usama.

So now Saudi Arabia has complete control over every one of its citizens, even the ones not in Saudi Arabia. Did they implant chips in all of them to track their every movement and are able to terminate them at any time? Your guarantee is just like everything else you've made up.

He had the mandate...it was rescinded because he was too busy pandering to political opposition that would never support him.
I didn't vote for a single Republican in 06...in fact I didn't vote at all, and would have been surprised had the Repubs maintained control...even if the wars were over.

Way to participate.

I haven't ever had to change my argument.

You never had to, you just did it. The only reason you change is because you can't stand being as wrong as you have been.

You've never had a clear argument...although you are getting better about it...which is one of the reasons I have been taking it easy on you...even dishing out alittle pity.

I have nothing but pity for you.

Oh we're a long way from incompetence...mistakes have been made, but they are near as big as you think.

Nice administration passive voice. The mistakes are bigger than you think. And they are the direct cause for the Democrat win in 06. Everyone but you sees it.

The other countries surrounding Iraq are going to make it difficult for any transition, because they don't want a Democracy there idiot...

Bush didn't count on the people of Iraq making it difficult. He made no plans in case of an insurgency and denied its existence for months. He didn't even have a comprehensive plan for reconstruction. Of course you have to ignore these facts because they don't fit into your wrong guess about what you thought Bush was doing in 2003. Yet in the face of all that, you stick to it because -- well because you said so. You don't need facts -- you have whottt.

Good, then shut the up and stop ing about the war.

Make me, fascist.

Link, to the perfect war?

I can link to competent military leaders who know about strategy and counterinsugency and presidents that actually had plans for nation building. Would you like to learn about them? Of course you wouldn't -- you have whottt's theory of everything. It's not really based on anything, but it's good enough for you.

Yeah...you think Afghanistan is where all the terrorists were...you were wrong. If 911 wasn't already proof of that.

Hey, you're content with leaving Osama alive and well. I'm not. Idiot.

We can't go to war with Pakistan #1...because Musharraf actually is attempting to un that country...#2. Because they have nukes. #3. Because they have a big ass military...
We can't go into Saudi because it will destroy the World Economy, alienate an outwardly pro US regime, piss off every muslim in the world.
Oh sure...we could defeat Suadi easily in a conventional war...our ing milit6ary was sitting there.
But politically and economically that would us...however, if we get nuked, it, priorities change.
Egypt is a corrupt regime but they are so corrupt they actually have corrupted their corruption and usually wind up one of our most important allies...
But they still have ty government...
I mean our peace with themand Israel is basically bribing them....

So we aren't attacking them out of convenience. How nice. Good to know this is so important to you that you are just willing to let them sit and fester. Your pocketbook is more important.

False...I just don't think it's been a disaster, and It hink the rousing discontent serves those that are trying to beat us politically(the only way they can win this war).

Of course you think it's been perfect. How could it not be. It's all been according to your plan.

Ehh...I can concede the point...but I think his mistake was trying to turn into a diplomat and unifier after proving himself to be an uncompromising asshole....I was voting for the uncompromising asshole, not the failed diplomat. In any case...
Bush's ups aren't near as bad as the Democrats that have kept him in power. The majority didn't vote for Bush in 2000...they did in 04...after no WMD, after unilaterially invading a country, without UN support...
THey voted for that Bush..they gave him that congress, then all of a sudden...he let the haters get to him...

reality set in for the rest of the country. Just not you.

No, the refernedum was in 04...in 06 no one cares but the Democrats...and it's not like the country wants totally conservative leadership, you idiot.

So no one cares about Iraq? Except you, right? You cared enough to not vote, but wnough to will the Republicans out of control of congress. Good job.

They once put Clinton in office...what, do you think everyone changes hard wired political party preference every decade?
No idiot...the moderates rule.

Yep, and they voted for Democrats because of Iraq.

[mookie2001]

i think you got dumped on whottt

[whottt]

You've got to be kidding me...

[whottt]

Chump just said he doesn't believe in the CIA....

[ChumpDumper]

The CIA that said WMDs in Iraq were, and I quote: "a slamdunk!"?

I said there are very real limits to what the CIA can do just like any intelligence group. If you knew anything about Iraq, you would know that. But you don't. You believe the CIA was perfect in Iraq. You believe that stockpiles of WMDs were found exactly where Rumsfeld said they were on TV. You believe Bush had a thoroughly developed plan for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq that was efficiently and thoughtfully executed by well-known experts who were chosen for the job based on merit, and who have stayed on for the duration of the reconstruction. You believe Bush fully expected and planned for an insurgency and secterian violence and made sure he secured the borders with Iran and Syria immediately after the invasion. You believe that every field commander in Iraq was well-trained in counterinsurgency, and no cordon and sweep operations ever happened that put innocent Iraqis in Abu Gharib. Even if they did, you believe that every Iraqi was treated humanely by the well-trained staff that numbered ten for every prisoner held.

Of course you never read any of this. You simply thought it up. Therefore its real to you.

Just like the tooth fairy and the boogeyman.

[ChumpDumper]

If you knew anything about the CIA in Iraq, you'd know we had agents operating in Iraq for months before the invasion. We gave out about 90 satellite phones and millions of dollars in cash to Iraqis and smuggled more to the CIA outpost for debriefing. These included members of the Special Security Organization, active-duty army officers who did things like turn over a hundred pages of war plans, and even one of Qusay's bodyguards. All this high-quality human intel, and the CIA still completely blew the issue of WMDs.

Now you are telling me they are infallibale directly after the one of the all-time biggest intel failures in the history of the United States. You know nothing. You believe Tom Clancy movies are do entaries.

[xrayzebra]

If you knew anything about the CIA in Iraq, you'd know we had agents operating in Iraq for months before the invasion. We gave out about 90 satellite phones and millions of dollars in cash to Iraqis and smuggled more to the CIA outpost for debriefing. These included members of the Special Security Organization, active-duty army officers who did things like turn over a hundred pages of war plans, and even one of Qusay's bodyguards. All this high-quality human intel, and the CIA still completely blew the issue of WMDs.

Now you are telling me they are infallibale directly after the one of the all-time biggest intel failures in the history of the United States. You know nothing. You believe Tom Clancy movies are do entaries.

Well Chump, you know Bush lied, so don't blame the
CIA. They were just doing their thingy. And we all
know Joe Wilson and his wife wouldn't lie. They are
just good americans, with a small "a".

[ChumpDumper]

The Bush administration basically ignored any intel that didn't support the conclusions they had already drawn about WMDs and the alledged links to Al Qaeda. Is that lying? Tough to say. It certainly wasn't interested in the truth as it was presented to them and as it actually turned out to be. The funny thing about neoconservativism is that real truth isn't as important as motivating the masses. The funnier thing is the the neocons in the administration didn't think anyone might check their gurus writings and speeches to figure out what they were doing.

[whottt]

The Bush administration basically ignored any intel that didn't support the conclusions they had already drawn about WMDs and the alledged links to Al Qaeda. Is that lying? Tough to say.

Because they didn't trust their intel.




Chump...after the Persian Gulf War in 91, when they sent weapons inspectors into Iraq...were Saddam's WMD programs ahead of what their intelligence indicated? Or behind?



Ahead, or behind?

No spin...no excuses, no delfections...just answer the question.