liberals....

[strandinthewind]

You mean like what we're doing with Qadaffi now?


Exactly. I cannot believe we are not putting him in jail. It is our own version of Saudi Arabia's all if forgiven if you terrorists turn yourselves in before June 30 - I mean PUULLEEZZEEEEE.

But, I gotta say, if it saved lives by not invading Libya - I am not that opposed to it. I just do not think he can be trusted.

[Johnny Stew]

No, we should've strunk while the iron was hot, smart ass, not give them a two month running start. :laugh:

Without trying to sound facetious, it was like they were organizing a big game of Hide 'N Seek.

"Ok, Osama, you try to hide while we count to a billion! Ready?! One... two... three................"

[strandinthewind]

No, we should've strunk while the iron was hot, smart ass, not give them a two month running start. :laugh:

So, you are saying you were for the war in Afganistan :shrug: AND you were for it immediately and not giving them a chance to produce OBL first :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

I'll be sure to get tickets away from the stage, so as not to pull a Mick and soak you with my bodily fluids after I erupt into laughter. :laugh:

:laugh:

You just reminded me that I have a Mick/"World Turning" question I want to post on the Rumours Forum.

[Sugar]

True, although W is not planting them. But Stay on target, what does that have to do with disproving my point that removing the Taliban and disrupting the Al-Q base of operations significantly weakened Al-Q.

One step forward and two steps back...

Sure it disrupted things, and maybe it weakened things. Hell, when I lose electricity during a thunderstorm it disrupts things! But this entire situation called for much more finesse. We alienated nearly all the countries who empathized with us after 9/11 when we invaded Iraq, including Muslim nations. We went forward with this cowboy attitude that "We don't need nobody", even when they were all screaming at us not to invade.

Al-Q wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, but they sure are now, and with a bunch more people who hate us than they had before.

[dissention]

So, you are saying you were for the war in Afganistan :shrug: AND you were for it immediately and not giving them a chance to produce OBL first :shrug:

I was for some type of military action immediately, but not two months later. I was opposed to going in November. And if you think they would've produced OBL, I want to know what is really in your Kool-Aid.

[strandinthewind]

One step forward and two steps back...

Sure it disrupted things, and maybe it weakened things. Hell, when I lose electricity during a thunderstorm it disrupts things! But this entire situation called for much more finesse. We alienated nearly all the countries who empathized with us after 9/11 when we invaded Iraq, including Muslim nations. We went forward with this cowboy attitude that "We don't need nobody", even when they were all screaming at us not to invade.

Al-Q wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, but they sure are now, and with a bunch more people who hate us than they had before.

Once again, I agree!!! :cool: AND - for that alone, W should be removed from office.

[gldstwmn]

Exactly. I cannot believe we are not putting him in jail. It is our own version of Saudi Arabia's all if forgiven if you terrorists turn yourselves in before June 30 - I mean PUULLEEZZEEEEE.

But, I gotta say, if it saved lives by not invading Libya - I am not that opposed to it. I just do not think he can be trusted.

For all you Reagan fans- two weeks ago Mr. Ghadafi (or Qadaffi depending on which news service you use) said he was "sorry Reagan never stood trial for bombing in Libya."
This piece of crap blew up a plane over Lockerbie Scotland killing 270 people and now Bushco is establishing diplomatic relations with them. Guess why? THEY'VE GOT OIL. :shocked:

[dissention]

Without trying to sound facetious, it was like they were organizing a big game of Hide 'N Seek.

"Ok, Osama, you try to hide while we count to a billion! Ready?! One... two... three................"

Exactly.

If Jason thinks that we shoud've given the Afghani government two months to produce OBL, that's just stupid and doesn't merit a comment. :laugh: They gave him a running start so that he could get away and they could focus their attention on Iraq without having to deal with him immediately.

[strandinthewind]

I was for some type of military action immediately, but not two months later. I was opposed to going in November. And if you think they would've produced OBL, I want to know what is really in your Kool-Aid.

I think W was trying to follow some sort of decorum and an attempt to get world approval. I think the first week or so was spent to make sure OBL did it and build the coalition, which took proof. Once they determined that it was OBL and they had the coalition, I think we should have sent Hell's Wrath there by way of five times as may troops and missles and destoroyed anything resembling AL-Q. But, then again, that might have been a bit too extreme :laugh: I just wanna know why we could never find him when we have all this surveillance equipment?

[dissention]

I think W was trying to follow some sort of decorum and an attempt to get world approval. I think the first week or so was spent to make sure OBL did it and build the coalition, which took proof. Once they determined that it was OBL and they had the coalition, I think we should have sent Hell's Wrath there by way of five times as may troops and missles and destoroyed anything resembling AL-Q. But, then again, that might have been a bit too extreme :laugh: I just wanna know why we could never find him when we have all this surveillance equipment?

:laugh: Like his attempts to get approval for Iraq, eh? :xoxo:

I just want to know why they invaded more than two months after the attacks. A week or two is understandable, but not more than two months. That's just absurd.

[strandinthewind]

Exactly.

If Jason thinks that we shoud've given the Afghani government two months to produce OBL, that's just stupid and doesn't merit a comment. :laugh: They gave him a running start so that he could get away and they could focus their attention on Iraq without having to deal with him immediately.

That is utter BS and you know it. If the US had responded on 9/12 alone and with full force against Afganistan, it would have been WWIII and you know it. Also, don't you think it was kind of okay to try and use diplomacy to save the thousands of innocent civilians not to mention out troops who died their. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but almost all intelligence indicates OBL was still in Afganistan when we went there. So, it not like he fled to another country in the meantime.

[gldstwmn]

Exactly.

If Jason thinks that we shoud've given the Afghani government two months to produce OBL, that's just stupid and doesn't merit a comment. :laugh: They gave him a running start so that he could get away and they could focus their attention on Iraq without having to deal with him immediately.

Imagine what he could spill about the Bush boys. No, he's very low on their priority list.

[strandinthewind]

Actually, I cannot believe you are even admtting we should have invaded Afganistan.

[strandinthewind]

Imagine what he could spill about the Bush boys. No, he's very low on their priority list.

That is estranged brother (one of like 100) gave W $50,000 through a broker as an investment in a business in 1977 :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

But we gave Saddam months and months to prove he didn't have WMDs and you still think we should have given the UN weapon inspectors more time? :shrug:

Yes. The UN inspectors didn't find anything and they weren't finished yet.

[gldstwmn]

That is estranged brother (one of like 100) gave W $50,000 through a broker as an investment in a business in 1977 :laugh:

A few posts ago it was 800. Make up your mind. By the way, how did the Libya thing play on Fox News tonight? Did it play at all?

[strandinthewind]

But we gave Saddam months and months to prove he didn't have WMDs and you still think we should have given the UN weapon inspectors more time? :shrug:

Actually, we gave SH over 11 years. But, I agree, I think it would have been better to let the final inspectors do their job even though SH would never have cooperated. Again, it was his burden to show he destroyed the WMD, not play hide and seek with us. But, I think that time owuld have allowed us to build a larger coalition, better ready our troops, and perhaps figure out a way to remove him in some other fashion like political pressure from the neighboring Arab states who allegedly hated him. In the end, however, I fear the only way to remove him, which Clinton, Kerry, essentially all of Congress, most of the world's major powers, and the UN all agreed needed to be done.

[strandinthewind]

A few posts ago it was 800. Make up your mind. By the way, how did the Libya thing play on Fox News tonight? Did it play at all?


I did not watch it. BTW - the 800 was the extended family and the 100 was just brothers. BOTH are very general estimates.

[gldstwmn]

I did not watch it. BTW - the 800 was the extended family and the 100 was just brothers. BOTH are very general estimates.

Yeah, I know. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

That is utter BS and you know it. If the US had responded on 9/12 alone and with full force against Afganistan, it would have been WWIII and you know it. Also, don't you think it was kind of okay to try and use diplomacy to save the thousands of innocent civilians not to mention out troops who died their. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but almost all intelligence indicates OBL was still in Afganistan when we went there. So, it not like he fled to another country in the meantime.

Read post #262. Don't put words in my mouth, pal, and say I advocated something that I didn't.

As for the intelligence, we all know how reliable our intel is, right? :rolleyes: If he was still there, we would've caught him.

They gave him two months to leave at a snail's pace, don't color the water or talk about diplomacy. You and I both know this administration wrote the book on how not to be diplomatic. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Yes. The UN inspectors didn't find anything and they weren't finished yet.

But SH did not give them accrate info in the beginning and he was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again. IT WAS HIS BURDEN - he did not meet it. He alone is responsible for the fate of Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

Starting in 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq, Saddam had the opportunity to prove that the WMD were destroyed. He couldn't/wouldn't do that. I think we waited long enough.

Saddam couln't run the risk of letting his neighbors know he didn't have squat. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. If this president didn't have such a vendetta against him, I think a much better solution could have been worked out.

[strandinthewind]

Read post #262. Don't put words in my mouth, pal, and say I advocated something that I didn't.

As for the intelligence, we all know how reliable our intel is, right? :rolleyes: If he was still there, we would've caught him.

They gave him two months to leave at a snail's pace, don't color the water or talk about diplomacy. You and I both know this administration wrote the book on how not to be diplomatic. :rolleyes:

I asked a question. How is that putting words in your mouth? You get so testy when I am winning :xoxo: :D :angel: :eek: :)

[dissention]

But we gave Saddam months and months to prove he didn't have WMDs and you still think we should have given the UN weapon inspectors more time? :shrug:

Two totally different scenarios. No one from Iraq attacked us ever.

You honestly believe that waiting two months to invade Afghanistan was actually going to benefit us?

[gldstwmn]

But SH did not give them accrate info in the beginning and he was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again. IT WAS HIS BURDEN - he did not meet it. He alone is responsible for the fate of Iraq.

His neighbors and mortal enemies have nuclear weapons. What fool is going to say, here I am, you hate me, I am unarmed.

[dissention]

I asked a question. How is that putting words in your mouth? You get so testy when I am winning :xoxo: :D :angel: :eek: :)

You started with the "if we attacked on 9/12" bull**** when you knew that was the farthest thing from the my mind or this conversation. Again, refer to post #262 and you'll see what I really said.

[strandinthewind]

Saddam couln't run the risk of letting his neighbors know he didn't have squat. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. If this president didn't have such a vendetta against him, I think a much better solution could have been worked out.

I will actually agree with that. But, I am unsure what could have worked. Everyone knew W was dead serious about the invasion. Many countries put heavy political pressure on SH to leave and we ofered to let him do so. He did not bend. So, what else could have been done I am unsure. I do think, however, we should have waited to build more world support and to train out troops better and possibly have avoided the prison abuse stuff, which most say came from the lack of training.

[dissention]

But SH did not give them accrate info in the beginning and he was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again.

Foul!

That is an outright lie and you know it. Hans Blix and the UN refute your claim 100%.

[strandinthewind]

Two totally different scenarios. No one from Iraq attacked us ever.

You honestly believe that waiting two months to invade Afghanistan was actually going to benefit us?

Thay attacked our ally in 1991. All of this stems from that. So FFOOUULL :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

But, I agree, we should have waited for the reasons stated earlier.

[dissention]

Thay attacked our ally in 1991. All of this stems from that. So FFOOUULL :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:


Again, no one from Iraq ever attacked us.

[strandinthewind]

Foul!

That is an outright lie and you know it. Hans Blix and the UN refute your claim 100%.

Once again, you are just wrong. SH submitted all those docs and the CD's of them and it was proven they were the same stuff he sent before. Then he started his "my palaces are exempt" schpeel when it was determined his palaces were more than just residences. Do you not remember that? That is what I am talking about. Moreover, he could lead Hans Blix all over the country and take him to tea, that does not mean he met his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD. To do that he had to produce the destroyes stuff, pictures of it, etc. He did not do that. Instead, once again, he said to the inspectors, you can go here go here go here. That was NOT meeting his burden. Why are you so willing to let him off on that?

[GypsySorcerer]

Two totally different scenarios. No one from Iraq attacked us ever.

You honestly believe that waiting two months to invade Afghanistan was actually going to benefit us?


I don't see the logic in saying years weren't long enough for Saddam to prove he destroyed the weapons, but two months was too long to invade Afghanistan. I do not think two months is that long to wait considering the state of chaos this country was in.

[Sugar]

Actually, we gave SH over 11 years. But, I agree, I think it would have been better to let the final inspectors do their job even though SH would never have cooperated. Again, it was his burden to show he destroyed the WMD, not play hide and seek with us. But, I think that time owuld have allowed us to build a larger coalition, better ready our troops, and perhaps figure out a way to remove him in some other fashion like political pressure from the neighboring Arab states who allegedly hated him. In the end, however, I fear the only way to remove him, which Clinton, Kerry, essentially all of Congress, most of the world's major powers, and the UN all agreed needed to be done.

But this is about focus (at least in my mind :cool: )

Right, we let this thing drag on for 11 years already, so what was the big rush now? I absoutely think we should have done something sooner, but this had nothing to do with bin Laden. The link to Al-Q seemed far-fetched at best. I listened to Powell's speech to the UN when he was giving the reasons to invade Iraq and remember thinking, "Is there supposed to be evidence in here somewhere?"

As soon as we established bin Laden as the man and we had a line on where he was, I say give 48 hours to the Taliban to produce him or we were going to come and get him. This was an imminent response to something that had JUST happened in our country.

OK maybe not 48 hours, but not two months. I'm sitting here trying to recall the sentiment right after 9/11...I remember there was cheering in the streets of Pakistan...or maybe 48 hours..we took a "screw y'all" approach to Iraq, why not Afganistan?

Saddam was a tiger in a cage. Linking the two things was stupid.

[strandinthewind]

Again, no one from Iraq ever attacked us.

When an ally of the US is attacked it is as if the US is attacked - the US will and should respond. I cannot believe you did not know that :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Once again, you are just wrong. SH submitted all those docs and the CD's of them and it was proven they were the same stuff he sent before. Then he started his "my palaces are exempt" schpeel when it was determined his palaces were more than just residences. Do you not remember that? That is what I am talking about. Moreover, he could lead Hans Blix all over the country and take him to tea, that does not mean he met his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD. To do that he had to produce the destroyes stuff, pictures of it, etc. He did not do that. Instead, once again, he said to the inspectors, you can go here go here go here. That was NOT meeting his burden. Why are you so willing to let him off on that?

Again, your previous statement is an outright lie. I know you like to spin, but this is getting absurd. He NEVER played the "you can go here but not here" game leading up to the invasion. You lied, simply put.

[dissention]

When an ally of the US is attacked it is as if the US is attacked - the US will and should respond. I cannot believe you did not know that :rolleyes:

You're getting really low, Jason. I expected better, honestly. :shrug:

[dissention]

I don't see the logic in saying years weren't long enough for Saddam to prove he destroyed the weapons, but two months was too long to invade Afghanistan. I do not think two months is that long to wait considering the state of chaos this country was in.

The purpose of invading Afghan. was to get OBL and disrupt al-Qaeda. How could this be accomplished if we gave OBL and his men a running start of two months? How?

[strandinthewind]

You started with the "if we attacked on 9/12" bull**** when you knew that was the farthest thing from the my mind or this conversation. Again, refer to post #262 and you'll see what I really said.

I still do not know what you are talking about.

[dissention]

I still do not know what you are talking about.

Then we're on the same page with each other. :xoxo:

[GypsySorcerer]

The purpose of invading Afghan. was to get OBL and disrupt al-Qaeda. How could this be accomplished if we gave OBL and his men a running start of two months? How?

With the exception of Pearl Harbor (Which was an entirely different situation), when have we ever conducted a military invasion in less than two months?

[gldstwmn]

With the exception of Pearl Harbor (Which was an entirely different situation), when have we ever conducted a military invasion in less than two months?

With the advance of technology, it's not really a fair comparison.

[GypsySorcerer]

With the advance of technology, it's not really a fair comparison.


We waited for the Gulf War.

[dissention]

With the exception of Pearl Harbor (Which was an entirely different situation), when have we ever conducted a military invasion in less than two months?

With technological advances since the 1940's, I don't understand what you're getting at. If we could do it in less than two months back then, we could do it in 2 weeks now.

[dissention]

We waited for the Gulf War.

Because we knew Saddam wasn't about to go anywhere. :shrug:

al-Qaeda was a new kind of enemy and needed to be dealt with much quicker, plain and simple. There's no getting around it.

[gldstwmn]

We waited for the Gulf War.

And? I don't really understand.

Our military technology made huge advances in the post Gulf War era. We went from having smart bombs that could strike within a reasonable distance to those that could strike within inches. This is just one example. There are many, many others. The Clinton administration invested a lot of effort in developing long range missiles so that they wouldn't have to put troops on the ground unless absolutely necessary.

[GypsySorcerer]

And? I don't really understand.

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

[dissention]

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

There are no examples because a situation like 9/11 never arose. But don't you think that we had the technology and the means to invade Afghan in two weeks?

[strandinthewind]

Again, your previous statement is an outright lie. I know you like to spin, but this is getting absurd. He NEVER played the "you can go here but not here" game leading up to the invasion. You lied, simply put.

I cannot believe you do not remember Iraq at first refusing to allow any inspections in the so called palaces (I think there were over 50 of them), which were not just homes but war rooms and possible storage sites. Then, after negotiatons with the UN and the amassing of like 200,000 plus troops on his borders, SH caved. So, I think I am correct in saying in the beginning SH was not cooperative. He tried the same crap he had been trying for the last 11 years and the world refused to put up with it.

And, I have never said SH was not cooperating with Blix. Here is an interview with Blix http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/19/ip.00.html Blix says SH was cooperating in the process, etc. - it actually sounded cagey to me - but he cooperated on the surface nonetheless. But, NONE of that answers the main question of the need for inspectors in the first place. Again, why did he not produce the required evidence instead of making us look for it - it was SH's burden - you still have not answered that one. The answer is he did not.

[gldstwmn]

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

I edited my post for further explanantion.
As far as the military performing with haste, that's what they're trained to do- meaning they are supposed to be ready to go when called and quickly.
I don't know, you could be right though. Why did it take so long for the fighter jets to scramble on 9/11? Unless they were told to stand down. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You're getting really low, Jason. I expected better, honestly. :shrug:

So, when an ally of the US is attacked we should not defend them and NONE of this current situation in Iraq has anything to do with the accord SH signed to end the first Gulf War and stop us from going on to Bagdad and removing him from power? Is that what you are saying? If it is, it is an incorrect version of history as well as a misunderstanding of the meaning of ally. I think you know that.

[GypsySorcerer]

There are no examples because a situation like 9/11 never arose. But don't you think that we had the technology and the means to invade Afghan in two weeks?

Of course we had the technology and means to do it. But that doesn't make the decision process any less difficult. And the fact that we hadn't faced a situation like 9/11 made what Bush was facing all the more difficult.

[strandinthewind]

There are no examples because a situation like 9/11 never arose. But don't you think that we had the technology and the means to invade Afghan in two weeks?

No, there was the first WTC bombing. It was a bust, but they nonetheless attacked us on our soil and if that car had been in a diff. location the results could have been MUCh worse. Then they atacked our ships and our bases. So, while over 3,000 people never died, on a much smaller scale we had been attacked both on our shores and on out foreign properties and military installations :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

No, there was the first WTC bombing. It was a bust, but they nonetheless attacked us on our soil and if that car had been in a diff. location the results could have been MUCh worse. Then they atacked our ships and our bases. So, while over 3,000 people never died, on a much smaller scale we had been attacked both on our shores and on out foreign properties and military installations :shrug:

Yep. And Condi and company still couldn't figure out where Bin Laden might strike-after one of his distant cousins already tried, failed and told them "They will try again." Hmmmm.

[strandinthewind]

Of course we had the technology and means to do it. But that doesn't make the decision process any less difficult. And the fact that we hadn't faced a situation like 9/11 made what Bush was facing all the more difficult.

I actually cannot believe Dissention is advocating the war in Afganistan. Dissention, at the time, did you advocate it. Would you have supported an immediate solo US invasion of Afgnaistan on 9/12? Because that is what you are implying tonight. So, I want to clear that up. A "yes I was for it" or a "no I was not" will do :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Yep. And Condi and company still couldn't figure out where Bin Laden might strike-after one of his distant cousins already tried, failed and told them "They will try again." Hmmmm.

Apparently neither could the regime in power during the first three or four attacks :rolleyes: Again, show me how she or anyone was supposed to fisgure out on the morning of 9/11 four planes would be hijacked. Where is the proof of that specific event. There is none. There were in general warnings that the FBI and CIA were investigating (if they were not then why did the 8/01 memo. come out :shrug: ) But, I agree she should have cuaght it and the buck stops with her.

[gldstwmn]

Apparently neither could the regime in power during the first three or four attacks :rolleyes: Again, show me how she or anyone was supposed to fisgure out on the morning of 9/11 four planes would be hijacked. Where is the proof of that specific event. There is none. There were in general warnings that the FBI and CIA were investigating (if they were not then why did the 8/01 memo. come out :shrug: ) But, I agree she should have cuaght it and the buck stops with her.

Clinton actively went after terrorists and stopped them. :)

[GypsySorcerer]

Clinton actively went after terrorists and stopped them. :)

They why are we still hunting for OBL? Why did the Sudan debacle happen?

[strandinthewind]

Clinton actively went after terrorists and stopped them. :)

He stopped OBL - news to me!!!!!!!!

But I agree during his administration an astute US Canadian border guard stopped the Y2K LA airport bombing. But, I am unsure Clinton was directly responsible for that. I think it was a border guard going their job.

[dissention]

I actually cannot believe Dissention is advocating the war in Afganistan. Dissention, at the time, did you advocate it. Would you have supported an immediate solo US invasion of Afgnaistan on 9/12? Because that is what you are implying tonight. So, I want to clear that up. A "yes I was for it" or a "no I was not" will do :cool:

I can't believe you still continue to lie about Saddam playing games leading up to the invasion. :rolleyes:

I advocated some sort of military action immediately, but again, I did not support what the admin. did in November. I thought it was a waste and had no purpose.

[dissention]

He stopped OBL - news to me!!!!!!!!

She didn't say that, Spinner. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

You know I was thinking all of this discussion is so easy in hindsight, which is always 20/20. I would hate to be there and have to make the decisions to send people in harm's way. And - they all have to do it. The whole thing just terrifies me.

[dissention]

They why are we still hunting for OBL?

Because this administration is incompetent. Just look at how they halted the Cole investigation.

[strandinthewind]

She didn't say that, Spinner. :wavey:

No, she said he stopped terrorists, OBL in a terrorist who attacked the US three or four times on Clinton's watch. I was noting that he never stopped OBL that I know if. Maybe you know differently.

[dissention]

No, she said he stopped terrorists, OBL in a terrorist who attacked the US three or four times on Clinton's watch. I was noting that he never stopped OBL that I know if. Maybe you know differently.

No differently than you, I just didn't spin what she said to suit my views.

And you still will not admit that you lied earlier.

[GypsySorcerer]

Because this administration is incompetent. Just look at how they halted the Cole investigation.

Couldn't we say the Clinton administration was incompetent for not catching him, either? :shrug: I do think Clinton tried to get him, but was just unsuccessful. And I believe that we are still hunting for him, despite the media coverage :angel: ;)

[strandinthewind]

I can't believe you still continue to lie about Saddam playing games leading up to the invasion. :rolleyes:

I advocated some sort of military action immediately, but again, I did not support what the admin. did in November. I thought it was a waste and had no purpose.

You honestly do not remember SH saying the palaces were off limits and then negotiating to let the inpsectors in them. That is game playing pure and simple. AND - I am still waiting for your explanation regarding why you give SH a free pass on failing to meet his burden and instead making the inspectors look for a needle in a haystack :shrug:

[dissention]

Couldn't we say the Clinton administration was incompetent for not catching him, either? :shrug: I do think Clinton tried to get him, but was just unsuccessful. And I believe that we are still hunting for him, despite the media coverage :angel: ;)

We were? News to me. I don't pay attention to mainstream news and never have, they lie.

Again, we knew who was responsible for the Cole bombing, yet dropped the investigation and forgot about it.

[gldstwmn]

They why are we still hunting for OBL?

We're not. :)

[strandinthewind]

No differently than you, I just didn't spin what she said to suit my views.

And you still will not admit that you lied earlier.

I did not. SH originally would not let the inspectors into his so called palaces. That and the regurgitation of the same 1998 documents is what I was referring to. Prove me wrong. prove that he did not do that. You cannot and you know it.

[dissention]

You honestly do not remember SH saying the palaces were off limits and then negotiating to let the inpsectors in them. That is game playing pure and simple. AND - I am still waiting for your explanation regarding why you give SH a free pass on failing to meet his burden and instead making the inspectors look for a needle in a haystack :shrug:

I will tomorrow, I don't have the energy right now; it's past midnight.

And besides, this thread has gotten too nasty even for my tastes.

[strandinthewind]

No differently than you, I just didn't spin what she said to suit my views.

And you still will not admit that you lied earlier.

She said "Clinton actively went after terrorists and stopped them" - I said I did not know Clinton stopped OBL. How is that not a direct response to her statement? I am waiting!!!!

[dissention]

I did not. SH originally would not let the inspectors into his so called palaces. That and the regurgitation of the same 1998 documents is what I was referring to. Prove me wrong. prove that he did not do that. You cannot and you know it.

I certainly can and will.

[GypsySorcerer]

We were? News to me. I don't pay attention to mainstream news and never have, they lie.

Again, we knew who was responsible for the Cole bombing, yet dropped the investigation and forgot about it.


You're not answering my Clinton question. :laugh:

To the best of my knowledge, we have been looking for OBL since the Afghanistan invasion. The media never report in that action; it was mentioned briefly when Pat Tillman was killed and has since vanished.

[dissention]

She said "Clinton actively went after terrorists and stopped them" - I said I did not know Clinton stopped OBL. How is that not a direct response to her statement? I am waiting!!!!

"I am waiting
I am waiting
For the truth to come out of your keyboard"

[gldstwmn]

I will tomorrow, I don't have the energy right now; it's past midnight.

And besides, this thread has gotten too nasty even for my tastes.

Good night honey. :xoxo:

Pleasant dreams to the rest of you. :angel: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Couldn't we say the Clinton administration was incompetent for not catching him, either? :shrug: I do think Clinton tried to get him, but was just unsuccessful. And I believe that we are still hunting for him, despite the media coverage :angel: ;)

Yes we could, but them is fightin' words to the far left :laugh:

[dissention]

You're not answering my Clinton question. :laugh:

To the best of my knowledge, we have been looking for OBL since the Afghanistan invasion. The media never report in that action; it was mentioned briefly when Pat Tillman was killed and has since vanished.

Because we aren't looking for OBL. Look up how many troops we have in Afghan. right now and get back to me.

[wondergirl9847]

Trust No One.

From an X-Phile. LOL

[dissention]

Good night honey. :xoxo:

Pleasant dreams to the rest of you. :angel: :wavey:

Good night, doll, try not to dream of the Christian Coalition. :xoxo: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I will tomorrow, I don't have the energy right now; it's past midnight.

And besides, this thread has gotten too nasty even for my tastes.

I agree, but when you call someone a liar and do not back it up, you should not be surprised when they call you on it :cool: Actually, I think other than that, we were being civil for us :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

"I am waiting
I am waiting
For the truth to come out of your keyboard"

Bless your heart you are being antagonitic this evening. i fully answered your question and you know it. You just cannot admit I have been accurate all night and it is eating you up :laugh:

[dissention]

I agree, but when you call someone a liar and do not back it up, you should not be surprised when they call you on it :cool: Actually, I think other than that, we were being civil for us :laugh:

No, it's gotten a quite nasty and I'm not too keen on it.

I've posted so much in the past that refute what you posted as fact when it comes to Saddam and inspections, if you haven't read it, it's your problem and not mine. If I have to, I'll post it again tomorrow, but not now because I'm tired.

[GypsySorcerer]

Good night honey. :xoxo:

Pleasant dreams to the rest of you. :angel: :wavey:


Good night. :)

[strandinthewind]

No, it's gotten a quite nasty and I'm not too keen on it.

I've posted so much in the past that refute what you posted as fact when it comes to Saddam and inspections, if you haven't read it, it's your problem and not mine. If I have to, I'll post it again tomorrow, but not now because I'm tired.

I am sorry if the truth that SH played cat and mouse with the palaces in the beginning of the negotiations for inspections does not fit into your points. But it is the truth as best as I remember it. I cannot change that. Again, I am not arguing that SH did not cooperate with Blix. I am arguing about the negotiations for the inpesctions. And you have never answered in this thread or anywhere else why SH never produced evidence that he destroyed his WMD - which was his burden for 11 years to do. I think that is an important point because if he had done that, none of this would have happened. It just amazes me how people (not necessarily you) are just willing to let him slide on that one and instead focus on the inspections. But, I thijnk I have angered you by putting you in a corner. That is interesting to me because I always concede a poit when I am wrong. I do not understand when others cannot. Again, whenever you are ready to prove SH did not play cat and mouse a the beginning of the negotiations for the inspectors and when you are willing to provide an explanation of why SH did not meet his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD or even that we did in the 1998 bombing, I am all ears. But, if you want, we can drop this right now with the full knowledge that it will only come up again :cool:

[gldstwmn]

But I agree during his administration an astute US Canadian border guard stopped the Y2K LA airport bombing. But, I am unsure Clinton was directly responsible for that. I think it was a border guard going their job.

Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj -Ramzi Yousef,Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman,-caught and convicted in the World Trade Center Bombings.
Timothy McVeigh-caught and convicted in the Oklahoma City Bombings.
Terry Nichols-caught and convicted in the Okalanhoma City bombings.

Clinton tried, really tried to find Bin Laden.

[gldstwmn]

To the best of my knowledge, we have been looking for OBL since the Afghanistan invasion. The media never report in that action; it was mentioned briefly when Pat Tillman was killed and has since vanished.

Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire.

[strandinthewind]

Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj -Ramzi Yousef,Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman,-caught and convicted in the World Trade Center Bombings.
Timothy McVeigh-caught and convicted in the Oklahoma City Bombings.
Terry Nichols-caught and convicted in the Okalanhoma City bombings.

Clinton tried, really tried to find Bin Laden.

I agree Clinton's regime caught and convicted those, although I think there were more in OK City, but that is a whole other thread.

I agree - and if we had the tech we hace today we probably could have acted on those sat. photos - apparently such a quick reaction was not all that possible at that time.

I also think the Bush Admin. essentially ignored the Clinton admin.'s warnings about OBL and Al-Q, much to our detriment.

[strandinthewind]

Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire.

I did not know that. That blows. Apaprently many were in Afganistan. You would think there would be a way to prevent that with all of our technology.

[estranged4life]

Timothy McVeigh-caught and convicted in the Oklahoma City Bombings.
Terry Nichols-caught and convicted in the Oklahoma City bombings.


McVeigh was found guilty on the Federal level for the deaths of 8 Federal officers and given the death penalty and was eventually executed...Never tried on State charges, He died taking any knowledge of others who helped in this act with him.

Nichols was found guilty of conspiring with McVeigh and damage to Federal property and was given 40 years in Federal prison, He was found guilty on 162 State charges of murder but escaped the death penalty due to a deadlocked jury during the sentencing phase (A judge will decide now on either life w/the possibility of parole or life w/out the possibility of parole) He will not publicly admit his part.

Michael Fortier received 12 years in Federal prison for knowing about the bombing in advance and did nothing to stop it. He has claimed that others helped McVeigh & Nichols, But claims they may have been foreigners and not American citizens.

Just think, If Oklahoma would have passed the concealed gun law 1 year earlier (Went into law January 1996) McVeigh would have never been held in jail, He would have bailed out on traffic violations (No tag, No registration) within 2 hours after he was stopped, arrested & booked and could have easily disappeared...If not for a fluke traffic stop history could possibly have been really different.

But since concealed weapons in 1995 were illegal in the state of Oklahoma he was arressted. The Perry municipal judge's docket was backupped with a major divorce case settlement the morning of April 19, So McVeigh was not able to bail out on the gun charges alone. By early afternoon the pictures of John Doe #1 & #2 (John Doe #2 sure looks eerily like the enemy combatant Jose Padilla, Coincidence?) made the air here in Oklahoma and the police thought McVeigh looked very similar and held him...Not knowing for sure if he was a suspect, They (Law enforcement in Perry) delayed releasing him for a couple of days with some minor excuses (ie-Paper snafus), By then the FBI made it known that they definitely had a suspect in their hand...

The rest is a very clouded/shrouded history.

[estranged4life]

I agree Clinton's regime caught and convicted those, although I think there were more in OK City, but that is a whole other thread.


remembered, That is interesting about the OKC conspiracy because it has possible ties to 9/11 & the airport where one of the flights (American Airlines Flight 11) on 9/11 originated from:

One of the "supposed other" Murrah conspirators that eyewitnesses claim they saw in the presence of McVeigh leading up to the days of planning the OKC bombing was a former Iraqi soldier (Hussain Al-Hussaini) who alone moved to the US (Oklahoma City specifically) to escape from the terror of SH. He was questioned repeatedly over time about any connection to McVeigh/Nichols and when no possible connection was found he was released and seemingly disappearred from the publics eye.

This former Iraqi soldier reappearance is quite interesting because he was arrested at Boston's Logan Airport immediately after 9/11 (If I remember it was like a few days after 9/11) for illegal paperwork, Which no one payed attention to, But after he was arrested (Due to falsifying records to obtain a security related job, A he job started and held right before 9/11) it made news here in Oklahoma due to his possible connection with McVeigh (There have been 100's of eyewitnesses who saw this man in the passenger seat of the Ryder truck on the morning of April 19,1995)...Coincidence? Possibly, but very disturbing to some and a possible link the causes alot of people to say there was an even wider conspiracy in OKC.

My opinion on it is mixed, But it makes an interesting coincidence.

[CKFive]

Some year’s back, I encountered a homeless woman and her children on the street, begging for help. She told me she’d been burned out of her apartment, and cut off welfare as a result. The welfare office refused to help her find another place to live, she said. She’d have go to some other office clear across town. Well, I gave her some money, but I also got the phone number of her caseworker.

That woman hadn’t been selling me a phony sob story; the caseworker confirmed her account in every detail. The welfare office wasn’t allowed to help her with housing, or even to contact the housing agency on her behalf. So here she was pounding the pavement, begging for help, because one city agency wouldn’t make a ****ing phone call to another city agency. But I’ll bet they had plenty of time to call Dial-A-Joke or porno lines.

First off section 8 housing is a federal program and not only transferable within a city, but transferable to any other state as well. Any real-estate agent in any city can direct you to an apartment or house that will accept section 8. Why would this be? Because it’s guaranteed money for the landlord

Liberals are supposed to be the friends of the poor and oppressed. Maybe they were, once. But many of them today are just social parasites, whose bureaucratic programs and earnest causes are devoted more to securing their own government jobs or making them feel good about themselves than to truly aiding the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, racial and ethnic minorities, gays, whatever, whoever.

So what dear readers do the conservatives have to right this fictional wrong? “Screw these people and give me more free money”

Just as the old-line right-wingers thought nothing could be worse than a Communist (Nowadays, they may be split between secular humanists and Islamic fundamentalists as bêtes noirs.), ivory tower liberals still believe that nothing can be worse than a bourgeois. It is a prejudice that has a long history, going back at least as far as French novelist Gustave Flaubert ("Hatred of the bourgeoisie is the beginning of wisdom.").

Of course, the liberal intelligentsia can argue that its contempt for the working class turned bourgeoisie is well-earned: just look at Archie Bunker. Anyone who thinks there aren’t still a lot of Archie Bunkers out there, even 20 years after All in the Family, must be living on Mars. But there is an obvious element of hypocrisy here: can anyone seriously believe that working class whites were more bigoted in the 1970s or afterwards than they were in the 1930s when they were celebrated in proletarian fiction?

Among European intellectuals, there has long been a contempt for the common people almost as virulent as that of British aristocrats of old. "A tepid mass of flesh scarcely organized into human life," Virginia Woolf called them. But perhaps even more virulent has been the liberal intellectual romanticization of the antisocial and even the criminal as preferable to the bourgeois, which has crossed the ocean in recent decades.



Jean Paul Sartre once wrote a hagiography of Jean Genêt, the thief turned poet and playwright, who had demonstrated his authenticity by "choosing" to be a thief. Without arguing about the literary merits of either writer, let us imagine that Genêt had "chosen" to be a doctor — not a Park Avenue plastic surgeon, mind you, but a doctor dedicated to service of the poor. Would Sartre have canonized him?

This is actually fairly slick propaganda; it simultaneously vilifies liberals as some how connected not only to communists, and Europeans, but to historically anachronistic communists and Europeans. While at the same time making sure to point out that you can’t really trust intellectuals.

This is classic conservative “faux moderate” wherein we are supposed to see that their position is in fact the only viable one because hell the author of this isn’t a conservative. Heck all the middle of the road types is signing on.

I think I’ll still vote for John Kerry. No wait a second

I’m actually an undecided leaning towards Kerry.

[dissention]

I am sorry if the truth that SH played cat and mouse with the palaces in the beginning of the negotiations for inspections does not fit into your points. But it is the truth as best as I remember it. I cannot change that. Again, I am not arguing that SH did not cooperate with Blix. I am arguing about the negotiations for the inpesctions. And you have never answered in this thread or anywhere else why SH never produced evidence that he destroyed his WMD - which was his burden for 11 years to do. I think that is an important point because if he had done that, none of this would have happened. It just amazes me how people (not necessarily you) are just willing to let him slide on that one and instead focus on the inspections. But, I thijnk I have angered you by putting you in a corner. That is interesting to me because I always concede a poit when I am wrong. I do not understand when others cannot. Again, whenever you are ready to prove SH did not play cat and mouse a the beginning of the negotiations for the inspectors and when you are willing to provide an explanation of why SH did not meet his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD or even that we did in the 1998 bombing, I am all ears. But, if you want, we can drop this right now with the full knowledge that it will only come up again :cool:

I told you repeatedly last night that I would tackle your lies today because I was tired. If that's not good enough for you, tough tacos. :) It may be the truth as you best remember it, but it isn't the truth according to the facts.

[gldstwmn]

I did not know that. That blows. Apaprently many were in Afganistan. You would think there would be a way to prevent that with all of our technology.

Like the flak jackets they never got?

BTW, mocking his death is beneath you. :distress:

[mylittledemon]

I am apalled by Farenheit 9/11 and I'm also amazed at the amount of people that are taking this as total truth.

There are a few things you have to remember.

1) It's from Michael Moore's point of view. He's the brains behind it. I believe he's a staunch democrat but he's also as far to the left as you can get. That borders on liberal. To me, that's worse than just SAYING you are a liberal. He's got a hidden agenda, as most liberals do.

2) It's a MOVIE! Michael Moore is making a big paycheck off this. He's a guy out there trying to make a living. Don't think for a minute he's not sitting back laughing and flipping thru his stack of money.

3) Moore is also a big Kerry supporter. When all is said and done, you have Bush in your right hand and Kerry on the left. I know that Kerry will not take matters into his own hands. He will bend to his parties' will and will not fight terror. He even stated he'd apologize to the terrorists if and when he took office! That's scary to me. I'm not a proponent of war, but damnit, if it's them or us, it sure as hell better be them!

[strandinthewind]

I told you repeatedly last night that I would tackle your lies today because I was tired. If that's not good enough for you, tough tacos. :) It may be the truth as you best remember it, but it isn't the truth according to the facts.


Here are some quotes from Bix when he was reporting to the UN -they indicate that although SH was cooperating with access to sites, he was once again not meeting his burden of proving the destruction of the WMD, which according the bolded text, Blix indicates SH was not doing:

Blix's report hinted at undisclosed weapons but provided no fresh evidence. In carefully modulated, neutral language, Blix said he found circumstantial evidence that Iraq could hold a devastating arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq provided a "workable environment" for inspections and did not directly refuse access to any weapons site, but he also described some "disturbing incidents and harassments" such as anti-inspection demonstrations.

The meat of the report was a list of Iraqi weapons the U.N. team had not been able to find or the destruction of which could not be verified.

Blix disclosed, for example, that there is a "discrepancy of 6,500 bombs" between the number of chemical weapons explosives Iraq admitted to having, and that Saddam has accounted for.

"The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons," he said.

Blix noted that the 122 mm chemical rockets inspectors found "could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets ... points to the issue of several thousand ... chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."

Also, according to Blix, "Iraq has provided little evidence for production of (8,500 liters of anthrax and other biological toxins) and no convincing evidence for its destruction."

He added, "There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date."

On the issue of whether Saddam was attempting to build nuclear weapons, U.N. atomic weapons official Mohamed ElBaradei said investigations were under way despite some interference by Iraqi officials. He said, however, that inspectors needed more time.

"We should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program," he said.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1753597
_______________________________________________________________

Here is another article with quotations from Blix's report to the UN:


Monday, 27 January, 2003, 17:34 GMT
Inspections report: Key points
Chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix and Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear agency, presented their crucial report on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq to the UN Security Council on 27 January.
Here are the key points:

Statement by Dr Blix:

Iraq has provided co-operation with regards to the inspection process, but it still needs to co-operate in matters of substance.

Iraq has provided access to all sites inspectors have wanted to inspect and the environment has been "workable".

There was a "sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time."

However, Iraq appeared "not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

Iraq has failed to comply with the inspectors' request to deploy a U2 plane to carry out aerial imagery and surveillance.

There have been recent incidents of harassment and demonstrations against the inspectors - these are unlikely to have occurred without the initiative of the Iraqi authorities. Iraq is aware allegations that the inspections serve intelligence purposes are untrue.

" Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament which was demanded of it "

Dr Hans Blix

Iraq's 7 December, 2002, weapons declaration still leaves questions unanswered.

Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs.

Iraq said VX nerve gas it produced was never turned into weapons - Unmovic (the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) has information which conflicts with this account.

Iraq has failed to account for supplies of anthrax it said it had produced and later destroyed. There are "strong indications" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it admitted and might still have some stocks.

Iraq has imported banned items, including 300 rocket engines, as recently as December, 2002, which could be used in a missile programme.

Regarding the recent discovery of undeclared documents on nuclear development in an Iraqi scientist's home, "there can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items".

Inspectors have requested 11 private interviews with Iraqi scientists, all of which have been turned down.

Statement by Dr ElBaradei:

Iraq's 2002 declaration did not answer questions which have been outstanding since inspectors were barred from returning to Iraq in 1998.

Good progress has been made during the latest inspections.

No prohibited nuclear activities have been identified during the inspections, but Baghdad needs to be more "pro-active" during further inspections.

"We have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

Inspectors "should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program".

"Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course."

Another "few months" for inspections "would be a valuable investment because they could help us avoid a war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2698857.stm

____________________________________________________________

So, while Iraq was giving Blix and his team access, SH was not meeting his burden of providing the proof that these weapons and other materials had been destroyed. Blix says this repeatedly. So, I think it cannot be said SH was cooperating 100% when he was not providing the requested evidence Blix was calling for?

In any event, my earlier point was not that SH was not providing access to Blix, it was that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back in, SH initially refused to allow them access to his palaces. THe UN balked at this and noted SH's palaces were more than homes, they were potential storage sites and war rooms and could contain important documents. SH caved on this initial demand when the UN refuted it and he say the 200,000 plus troops amassing on his borders. I think that SH initial refusal to allow access to his palaces indicates he was up to his old games again.

I am unsure how that makes me a liar and I would appreciate a retraction :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Like the flak jackets they never got?

BTW, mocking his death is beneath you. :distress:

I was not mocking his death. I am unsure how you got that from my statement. I said "I did not know that [he was killed by friendly fire]. That blows. Apaprently many were in Afganistan. You would think there would be a way to prevent that with all of our technology." Where is the mocking in that. I said it "blows" that means it was a bad thing and then I wondered why it could not be prevented because apparently many other soldiers were killed by friendly fire. That was expressing regret not mocking him.

[dissention]

Again, you lied about Iraq playing games with inspections:

"All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

"Access has been provided to all sites we have requested to inspect."

"Iraq has provided access to all sites inspectors have wanted to inspect and the environment has been 'workable.'"

"The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect, and with one exception it has been prompt."

"We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul."

"Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."

"We have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

"With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991 may well be the truth."

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991."

"The numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive.'"


-All quotes from Dr. Hans Blix

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2967598.stm
Blix criticises coalition over Iraq weapons

In a BBC interview on Thursday, Mr Blix said he had been disappointed with the tip-offs provided by British and US intelligence.

"Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say."

He said UN inspectors had been promised the best information available.
"I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"


8,000 pages of the weapons report were excised by the White House. Why?

http://www.unmovic.org/
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/index.html

"More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

"We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed."

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

[gldstwmn]

Conservative opinion piece from Stars And Stripes to rebut original article in this thread- Please note, I do not share all of these opinions.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=22996

Conservatives feel betrayed

Conservatives feel betrayed by President Bush because he’s failed them on so many core issues. Christian conservatives view his actions as being in direct opposition to their values. Examples of how this administration has failed to uphold conservative positions are:

1. Military weakness. Military leadership knows that troops are spread too thin, but this administration is proposing further personnel cuts, unaccompanied extended tours, and closing more bases. Cutting veterans’ benefits doesn’t keep the bargain with those who have served and doesn’t help recruitment and retention efforts. Closing European bases doesn’t make strategic or diplomatic sense, since strengthening NATO was stated as a priority in the election campaign and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

2. Deficit spending. The United States now has a $500 billion deficit, but there is no shortage of future spending plans from the White House, such as a mission to Mars and the recent billion dollar payoffs to tobacco farmers.

3. Bigger government. The largest expansion of government bureaucracy since the Great Society programs of the ’60s was supported by this administration with the passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill.

4. Shortchanging U.S. anti-terrorism. This administration’s budget proposals cut emergency first-responders by $1 billion. Money that should be spent on hardening potential targets in the States, such as bridges, tunnels, ports and transit is instead used to build schools, clinics and infrastructure in other countries, paid by U.S. taxpayers. Terrorism experts maintain that the United States is as vulnerable now as it was before 9/11, but funds for projects remain mostly in Washington.

5. Lying about reasons for war. The 9/11 Commission has concluded that there was no connection between Iraq or Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The CIA’s and the U.N. weapons inspections teams concluded before the invasion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

6. Flip-flopping on social issues. The president says he is pro-life, but appoints judges who aren’t. He hasn’t ended government grants to Planned Parenthood. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and switched positions only after religious groups objected. Cheney's activist lesbian daughter is paid $180,000 for a highly visible position as his campaign manager.

7. Poor financial planning. The White House will run out of money for the war effort by October. Delaying tax cuts for the wealthiest would have provided a financial cushion, but instead the DOD was told to cut programs across the board.

The death of former President Ronald Reagan was a powerful reminder of what conservatives value most: character and trust. President Bush has proven that he can’t be trusted to strengthen the military, limit government spending, or effectively fight terrorism. Conservatives won’t support someone who breaks promises and does the opposite of what he says.

M.D. Wooldridge
Würzburg, Germany

[dissention]

So, while Iraq was giving Blix and his team access, SH was not meeting his burden of providing the proof that these weapons and other materials had been destroyed. Blix says this repeatedly. So, I think it cannot be said SH was cooperating 100% when he was not providing the requested evidence Blix was calling for?

In any event, my earlier point was not that SH was not providing access to Blix, it was that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back in, SH initially refused to allow them access to his palaces. THe UN balked at this and noted SH's palaces were more than homes, they were potential storage sites and war rooms and could contain important documents. SH caved on this initial demand when the UN refuted it and he say the 200,000 plus troops amassing on his borders. I think that SH initial refusal to allow access to his palaces indicates he was up to his old games again.

I am unsure how that makes me a liar and I would appreciate a retraction :shrug:

Again, you lied and said that Iraq was playing games with the inspectors; it was not.

And while Blix stated that they were given no new info whatsoever, it simply did not mean that they had resumed weapons development or possessed any new weapons. Now that we've been in there, he says that all of the info Iraq provided was correct and there was nothing new. He also calle dout the administration and said that they lied about Saddam destroying or hiding the weapons; he said it was impossible.

[dissention]

1) It's from Michael Moore's point of view. He's the brains behind it. I believe he's a staunch democrat but he's also as far to the left as you can get. That borders on liberal. To me, that's worse than just SAYING you are a liberal. He's got a hidden agenda, as most liberals do.

Micahel Moore is not a democrat and faults the democratic party just as much as the republican party. He has no hidden agenda, he's said numerous times, and even on his website, that he hates Bush and that he hopes this helps get him out of office.

2) It's a MOVIE! Michael Moore is making a big paycheck off this. He's a guy out there trying to make a living. Don't think for a minute he's not sitting back laughing and flipping thru his stack of money.

So now he's being faulted for his profession? He's been making movies and TV shows like this for twenty years.

3) Moore is also a big Kerry supporter. When all is said and done, you have Bush in your right hand and Kerry on the left. I know that Kerry will not take matters into his own hands. He will bend to his parties' will and will not fight terror. He even stated he'd apologize to the terrorists if and when he took office! That's scary to me. I'm not a proponent of war, but damnit, if it's them or us, it sure as hell better be them!

Moore is not a big Kerry supporter, he simply wants Bush gone and will vote for someone to get him out. And please post that quote about apologizing to the terrorists, that's a lie.

Again, please point out the lies and half-truths contained in the film. I submit you cannot.

[Bella Figura]

to break this down into the meaning of liberalism and conservatism and why these views have become so polarized in recent decades is to ask some hard questions of ourselves and our government.

a basic question I struggle with is how can I as a basically nice person with limited power face cruelty, hatred and true evil. and as I grow older, I find it harder and harder to see if I can even effect change on any large scale.

People can effect it on a small scale, someone yesterday brought me coffee as his random act of kindness and I was in a good happy caring mood all day which is why I felt I had the strength and fortitude to engage in this thread.
and I know I will pass on this gift to someone else because it made me feel so good. but to do it on a large scale to help our planet???

this is where the true differences between liberalism and conservatism come into play. Liberals believe is actively helping and doing their best to use diplomacy and words to combat the horrors of the world. This is a way to be but then it opens one up to others making you feel guilty and manipulating your niceness to achieve their own agendas. People always perceive nice for weak...

Conservatives believe in basically leave me alone, I'll leave you alone (this can be a definition of nice) but augmented with an attitude of get into my business and I'll be forced to "kick you butt". This is way to be but it requires you to forsaking a natural urge to help and becoming somewhat colder/heartless in this world. and then when religion throws itself into this mix to balance out this coldness, watch out!! People always perceive that their religion overides the basic rule of conservatism number one: no-meddling.

so what are we left with...bickering, yelling, calling one another liars and unable to realize that currently there is no real political way to effect change on a larger scale then our own lives. and this is the real dilemma our country is in, we have lots of good people who want to do good things or at people who don't want to be bothered and are willing to not get in the other peoples's way. yet we are unable to be human beings in the political structures we have set in place and that's why all; conservative, liberal are pissed off.

so we are once again back in the same landscape of the late 19th/early 20th century but a new political ideology has not yet surfaced to answer an ancient question. we remain stuck in endless debate (using half-truths and spin to justify our ineptness while our opponent screams liar!!!) as world-wide issues push us closer to the brink and our deaths...so how do we as basically nice people face cruely, hatred and evil???

[CarneVaca]

This thread is still going?

Its time to put the cap back on this can of mixed nuts!

[mylittledemon]

Dissention, you're obviously pro-Kerry and opposed to Bush. NOTHING anyone will or can say will change your mind, so it's pointless to argue with you about just for arguments sake.

Kerry said at the beginning of his campaign that when and if he took office, within the first six months he would personally go to the Middle East apologize to those people for what Bush has done. I remember seeing it all over Fox news and in the local papers. It's not a lie. Someone like that does not deserve to be the leader of this country.

[mylittledemon]

And one more thing, you said it yourself. Michael Moore "HATES" Bush and will do anything to get him out of office.

Ok...so what does that tell you? His hatred of Bush is his bias. And I'm not faulting him for being a filmaker, however you have to remember that's what he is. I take what Michael Moore does and says with a grain of salt. It's propoganda in it's rudamentary form. Either way we've all had the wool pulled over our eyes.

[dissention]

Kerry said at the beginning of his campaign that when and if he took office, within the first six months he would personally go to the Middle East apologize to those people for what Bush has done. I remember seeing it all over Fox news and in the local papers. It's not a lie. Someone like that does not deserve to be the leader of this country.

It is a lie unless you can prove that he said it by providing a link or video. I consider myself to quite well-versed when it comes to these matters and would know if he said that. Also, Fox News is not a reliable source of news. If you don't know that already, there's nothing to discuss. If Kerry said that, the Bushies and the conservative media would be all over it like white on rice. But I will tell you who does not deserve to be the leader of this country: an old drunk and cocaine user who stole the 2000 election with the help of his brother and who lied to us more time sthan I can count to get us into Iraq, not to mention the fact that he wants to write hate into our Constitution, doesn't fund his initiatives, and uses religion to polarize and get votes.

[dissention]

And one more thing, you said it yourself. Michael Moore "HATES" Bush and will do anything to get him out of office.

Ok...so what does that tell you? His hatred of Bush is his bias. And I'm not faulting him for being a filmaker, however you have to remember that's what he is. I take what Michael Moore does and says with a grain of salt. It's propoganda in it's rudamentary form. Either way we've all had the wool pulled over our eyes.

We can sit here all day and go back and forth, but the simple fact is that it doesn't matter if he's biased or not, the film contains nothing but factual footage and documents. There's not a single lie or half-truth in the film. Like I said, point one out. You cannot.

And, yes, Bush has pulled the wool over your eyes.

[mylittledemon]

I'm sorry you believe that Michael Moore's movie is 100% truth. There's nothing in this world that is 100% truth. You literally sound like you've been brainwashed. (Maybe you're Michael Moore himself!!) haha... Oh well...its good that we all have our own opinions. That's what makes the world go around. Otherwise we'd all be ****ing sheep.

[mylittledemon]

Oh and I like your personal attacks on Bush too! You have to remember that NO president has ever been lily-white. Look at Clinton! Sheesh...he was a sexual deviant who lied under-oath to the American people, on camera! TWICE! ugh...hey he's a human being. No one's perfect.

The liberals in this country like pointing out imperfections of the presidency so they can have their way. And a liberals point of view and their mindsets are in the minority. It's a scary thing.

[gldstwmn]

3) Moore is also a big Kerry supporter.

Actually, that's not true. Michael Moore is not supporting anyone that supported IWR. HE IS NOT ENDORSING KERRY. Please check your facts before you start spreading these lies.

[Bella Figura]

the film contains nothing but factual footage and documents. There's not a single lie or half-truth in the film.


I doubt MM would make this statement himself, because he would set himself up to be crucified by Rush, Sean, Ann and Fox. and though each of them are masters of spin, it is their making the big bucks job to point out the films inaccuracies if they exist, after all, it is a political film so it fall in their realm of commentary news. I only saw the film once and I don't have the transcript so I would never presume to know and point out any inaccuracies but human nature being what it is, I do not doubt there is at least one "lie" in the entire film...when it comes out on DVD, then perhaps I may be motivated to do this research but then again, why do something for free that others are paid good money to do...

[gldstwmn]

Kerry said at the beginning of his campaign that when and if he took office, within the first six months he would personally go to the Middle East apologize to those people for what Bush has done. .

You just called the entire Middle East terrorists. Is every Muslim and/or Jew a terrorist to you? Or are you just following the president's lead with the "Brown people."
What's wrong with apologizing to the people of Iraq? We invaded their country illegally.

[mylittledemon]

Bull****. If you're opposed to one then you propose the other. He's against Bush, so he supports Kerry. His whole schickt is to get Bush out! Of course he supports Kerry. He has to in order "see his will" done. Give me a break.

[gldstwmn]

Bull****. If you're opposed to one then you propose the other. He's against Bush, so he supports Kerry. His whole schickt is to get Bush out! Of course he supports Kerry. He has to in order "see his will" done. Give me a break.

Prove it. He doesn't support Kerry. You are either grossly misinformed or you are just lying.

[mylittledemon]

Um, no. I said Kerry said he would go to the Middle East and apologize to those people for what Bush has done. I never said everyone in the Middle East were terrorists. Read a little more carefully and stop trying to mince and twist people's words; its unbecoming.

[mylittledemon]

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. Bush or Kerry are going to win the presidency. SO...if you are against BUSH, then by default you have to be FOR the other candidate. It's that simple. Getting Bush out of office means that he is FOR Kerry. DURRRRRRR!

[gldstwmn]

Um, no. I said Kerry said he would go to the Middle East and apologize to those people for what Bush has done. I never said everyone in the Middle East were terrorists. Read a little more carefully and stop trying to mince and twist people's words; its unbecoming.

In case you haven't already noticed, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK OF ME.
Stick to the facts. I asked you a question. Are you capable of answering it?

[gldstwmn]

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. Bush or Kerry are going to win the presidency. SO...if you are against BUSH, then by default you have to be FOR the other candidate. It's that simple. Getting Bush out of office means that he is FOR Kerry. DURRRRRRR!

Your opinion has no basis in fact. Try again, this time supporting it with a direct statement from Mr. Moore stating he is supporting John Kerry. You cannot because he does not.

BTW, here is a list of presidential candidates for the upcoming election:

All Candidate(s) for President



Name Party Status NPAT
James Alexander-Pace Democrat Running No
Sterling David Allan Providential Running 2004
Gordon Lee Anderson Unknown Running 2004
Blake Ashby Republican Running 2004
Warren Roderick Ashe Democrat Running 2004
Donald Paul Award Democrat Running 2004
Michael J. Badnarik Libertarian Running 2004
George H. Ballard Democrat Running 2000
Dianne Barker Democrat Running No
Katherine Bateman Democrat Running No
Michael W. 'Mike' Bay National Barking Spider Resurgence Running 2004
Sanderson Beck Democrat Running No
Jerry Garth Beck Democrat Running 2004
William Hobert Blakley Democrat Running 2004
James K. 'Jim' Bollinger Democrat Running 2004
Richard P. Bosa Republican Running 2004
Jacques Yves 'Chief Jack' Boulerice Native American Running 2004
J. Boydston Independent Running No
Keith Brand Democrat Running No
Harry William Braun Independent Running 2004
Dewey R. Broughman Democrat Running 2004
Walter F. 'Walt' Brown Socialist Running 2004
Angelo Scott Brown Democrat Running 2004
John Buchanan Republican Running 2004
Larry Joe Buffington Democrat Running No
Edie Bukewihge Republican Running No
George W. Bush Republican Running No
Calvin Otis Butts Republican Running No
Michael A. Callis Republican Running 2004
Raymond Joseph Caplette Democrat Running No
Jerry Leon Carroll Independent Running No
Willie F. Carter Democrat Running 2004
Charles Caston Unknown Running No
Patrick Cazneau Democrat Running 2004
Jeanne Chebib Democrat Running 2004
David Keith Cobb Green Party Running 2004
Kenneth R. Crippen Write-In Running 2004
Randolph 'Randy' Wilson Crow Democrat Running 2004
HRM Caesar St Augustine De Buonaparte No Party Affiliation Running 2004
James Louis 'Watchman' Dezort Independent Running 2004
Earl F. Dodge Prohibition Running 2004
Gerry Dokka Democrat Running No
Ernest Lee Easton Veteran's Industrial Running No
Myron "Mike" Edwards No Party Affiliation Running No
Max Englerius American Tradition Running 2004
Lowell Jackson 'Jack' Fellure Republican Running No
Christopher G. Fenner Independent Running 2004
Susan C. Fey Democrat Running 2004
Barry Wynne Finkelstein Democrat Running No
Marsha Aileen Lannon Foutch Democrat Running No
Ronald E. 'John Galt, Jr' Gascon Write-In Running 2004
Hoover Mark Gee Independent Running 2004
Bruce Allen Gidner Republican Running 2004
Mildred Williams Glover Democrat Running 2004
George Gostigian Republican Running No
Robert William Gottier No Party Affiliation Running No
Hosanna Jesse Oliver Gray Democrat Running No
Jackson Kirk Grimes United Fascist Union Running 2004
Max Hacker Independent Running No
Robert Edward Haines Republican Running No
William A. 'Bill' Hall Independent Running 2004
Michael J. Halpin Write-In Running 2004
Albert 'Al' Hamburg Independent Running 2004
Vincent S. Hamm Democrat Running 2004
Cecilia Margaret Harding Democrat Running 2004
Mark 'Dick' Harnes Republican Running 2004
Clay Oliver Hill Independent Running 2004
Samuel B. Hoff Independent Running 2004
Georgia L. Hough Write-In Running 2004
Mildred T. 'Millie' Howard Republican Running 2004
Darrel Reece Hunter Democrat Running 2004
Michael Idrogo Independent Running No
Arthur H. Jackson Democrat Running No
Derrick C. Johnson Republican Running No
Alfonzo Jones Democrat Running No
Keith Russell Judd Write-In Running 2004
Timothy Charles 'Tim' Kalemkarian Republican Running No
Darren Eugene Karr Party X - Independent Running 2004
Andrew J. Kensington United States Justice Party Americale Running 2004
John Forbes Kerry Democrat Running No
Caroline Pettinato Killeen Democrat Running 2004
Mike Kleiner Independent Running 2004
Matthew Jon Klemmensen Independent Running 2004
Dennis J. Kucinich Democrat Running 2004
Temperance Alesha Lance-Council Anti-Hypocrisy Running 2004
Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche Democrat Running 2004
Tom Laughlin Republican Running No
Robert Lee Independent Running 2004
R. Randy Lee Democrat Running No
Robert H. Linnell Democrat Running 2004
Rick R. Lovelien No Party Affiliation Running 2004
John E. Maffi Independent Running No
Yehanna Joan Mary Malone Republican Running 2004
Joseph Martyniuk Independent Running No
Isabell Masters Republican Running 2004
William H.T. McGaughey Democrat Running 2004
Andrew George Merritt Independent Running 2004
Kenneth Oliver Miller No Party Affiliation Running 2004
Michael Tracy Miller Republican Running 2004
Grady Dean Mollenhour Democrat Running 2004
David John Morascini Human Being Running No
Robert Len Morris No Party Affiliation Running 2004
Leon Motor Independent Running No
Muadin E-Democratic Party Running No
Ralph Nader Independent Running No
George C. Nelson United Veterans Rights Running No
Sandra Queen Noble Democrat Running No
John Henry Nuerenberg Democrat Running 2004
Cornelius E. O'Connor Republican Running No
Edward Thomas O'Donnell Democrat Running 2004
Frederick Eugene Ogin Republican Running No
Joseph W. Organist Independent Running 2004
Fern Penna Democrat Running 2004
Michael A. Peroutka Constitution Running 2004
Charles Anton Phillips Independent Running 2004
Kevin Sean Polk Independent Running 2004
Samuel Lyndell Powell Independent Running No
James John Prattas Democrat Running 2004
Melanie G. Pridgen Unknown Running 2004
Raymond J. Raczkowski Democrat Running No
Diana Ramsey-Rasmussen-Kennedy Fair Representation Running 2004
Reality Write-In Running No
Don Reaux Republican Running 2004
Thomas K. 'Major Tom' Reed 21st Century Prohibition Running 2004
James Christopher Reed Democrat Running No
Arthur Joseph Regan Write-In Running 2004
John Donald Rigazio Republican Running No
Ray 'Buttercup' Rollinson Democrat Running 2004
Russell A. Romagna Unknown Running No
Andrew Mark Rotramel Independent Running No
Klayton Chadwick Rutherford Independent Running No
George Louis Rutten Independent Running 2004
Cyril E. Sagan Democrat Running No
Donald Sauter No Party Affiliation Running 2004
'Ole' Savior Democrat Running 2004
Joseph Charles Schriner Independent Running 2004
Steven Wayne Schrom Independent Running No
Larry J. Schuetter Turtle Running 2004
Craig Eric Sharp Democrat Running 2004
Alfred 'Al' Sharpton Democrat Running 2004
Freddy Irwin 'Messiah' Sitnick Independent Running No
Daniel L. Snow Write-In Running 2004
Brian Baker Springfield Menorah-Thor Running 2004
Michael Ross Tunick Strauss Mike's Party Running No
Vermin Love Supreme Misinformed Citizens of America Running No
Randy Wayne Sutherland United Christian Running 2004
Leonard Dennis Talbow Democrat Running No
Jim Taylor Democrat Running No
Diane Beall Templin American Running 2004
Pres. L. A. Tompkins Independent, Democrat Running 2004
Joe Turner Republican Running No
Tony G. Van Pelt Unknown Running 2004
Charles 'Jock F. Kennedy' Vick Independent Running 2004
Da Vid Write-In Running 2004
Evelyn Louise Vitullo Democrat Running 2004
Florence Walker Democrat Running No
Hugh Wallace American Independence Running 2004
Ted C. Weill Reform Running 2004
Helen McMullen Williams Democrat Running 2004
Timothy Rexford Wilson Independent Running No
Robert B. Winn Independent Running 2004
Thomas Francis Winterbottom Democrat Running 2004
Michael T. Witort Health Running 2004
Lucian Jacob Wojciechowski Democrat Running 2004
William James 'Bill' Wyatt Republican Running 2004
Thomas F. 'Tom' Zych Democrat Running 2004
Hillary Rodham Clinton Democrat Potential Candidate No

[dissention]

I'm sorry you believe that Michael Moore's movie is 100% truth. There's nothing in this world that is 100% truth. You literally sound like you've been brainwashed. (Maybe you're Michael Moore himself!!) haha... Oh well...its good that we all have our own opinions. That's what makes the world go around. Otherwise we'd all be ****ing sheep.

I see you still ahve not been able to point out one lie or half-truth in Moore's film. Really, how do you expect to have any credibility when discussing the film? You sound just as brainwashed by the neocons, only you don't have any facts or the like to back up what you say.

[dissention]

The liberals in this country like pointing out imperfections of the presidency so they can have their way. And a liberals point of view and their mindsets are in the minority. It's a scary thing.

And the conservatives don't do the same? :shrug:

What in the hell did you hear or read when Clinton was being impeached? It was all atack-attack-attack formt he right. They couldn't prove Whitewater, so they went after his sex life. Fortunately, the American people didn't care and he left office with a higher approval rating than Reagan.

And where's the link to Kerry saying he'd apologize?

[dissention]

I doubt MM would make this statement himself, because he would set himself up to be crucified by Rush, Sean, Ann and Fox. and though each of them are masters of spin, it is their making the big bucks job to point out the films inaccuracies if they exist, after all, it is a political film so it fall in their realm of commentary news. I only saw the film once and I don't have the transcript so I would never presume to know and point out any inaccuracies but human nature being what it is, I do not doubt there is at least one "lie" in the entire film...when it comes out on DVD, then perhaps I may be motivated to do this research but then again, why do something for free that others are paid good money to do...

If the conservative media and pundits (the same you pointed out) have still not been able to find a lie in his film, I doubt you'll be able to.

[Bella Figura]

they will, it's only Tuesday... ;). and perhaps some mainstream or liberal media will take up this issue and do the same. After all, this infotainment is starting to get on my nerves, first Mel now Mike...does anyone really need to be preached too??? I thought captive sermons died with the Puritans...

[dissention]

You just called the entire Middle East terrorists. Is every Muslim and/or Jew a terrorist to you? Or are you just following the president's lead with the "Brown people."
What's wrong with apologizing to the people of Iraq? We invaded their country illegally.

He probably thinks Afghanistan is in the Middle East, too.

[dissention]

Um, no. I said Kerry said he would go to the Middle East and apologize to those people for what Bush has done. I never said everyone in the Middle East were terrorists. Read a little more carefully and stop trying to mince and twist people's words; its unbecoming.

You said Kerry said he'd go over to the Middle East and apologize to the terrorists. Those were your words, not hers. No one is twisting them.

[dissention]

they will, it's only Tuesday... ;). and perhaps some mainstream or liberal media will take up this issue and do the same. After all, this infotainment is starting to get on my nerves, first Mel now Mike...does anyone really need to be preached too??? I thought captive sermons died with the Puritans...

They all got to see the film weeks ago, O'Reilly even walked out in the middle of it, so you can't take his word for anything. :shrug: They still have not found anything as of today.

[dissention]

I thought captive sermons died with the Puritans...

Tell that to Dumbya next time he gets on his soapbox to preach his hatred against gays.

[Bella Figura]

yes, and the Passion came out several months ago and CMT (and don't ask me why??) did a whole show on it this weekend...

[gldstwmn]

they will, it's only Tuesday... ;). and perhaps some mainstream or liberal media will take up this issue and do the same. After all, this infotainment is starting to get on my nerves, first Mel now Mike...does anyone really need to be preached too??? I thought captive sermons died with the Puritans...

The New York Times and many other already have done this. I've posted some of their commentary in other threads which you can easily find by using the search function. They, as members of the press saw the film weeks ago. There is no "there" there.

[Bella Figura]

Tell that to Dumbya next time he gets on his soapbox to preach his hatred against gays.


would that I really could...this goes back to my previous post about human beings inability to effect large-scale change

[dissention]

yes, and the Passion came out several months ago and CMT (and don't ask me why??) did a whole show on it this weekend...

And that was a factually inaccurate movie. He used the ramblings of that anti-semite Ann Emerich for his film.

[dissention]

The New York Times and many other already have done this. I've posted some of their commentary in other threads which you can easily find by using the search function. They, as members of the press saw the film weeks ago. There is no "there" there.

Exactly. All they've been able to come up with is that Moore claims Saudi's and bin Laden's were allowed to leave while commercial airspace was closed, but that's a lie, he never said that in the film. He said the flights occurred after September 13th and then showed the flight lists on the screen. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

You said Kerry said he'd go over to the Middle East and apologize to the terrorists. Those were your words, not hers. No one is twisting them.

"He even stated he'd apologize to the terrorists if and when he took office!"

:shrug:

[Bella Figura]

yes, but he used my entertainment time and dollars to preach to me...and the whole "don't watch it arguement" does not work if you want to be up on current events and the changes they are weaving into our lives. so I personally felt the same way viewing MM 's film as I did during the Passion.
I was getting preached to again so whether he has been more accurate with the facts is kind of irrelevant to me. People are using entertainment to pursue their agenda's because that's where the peoples is...and we needs the peoples to effect mass changes because as an individual, we can not do it ourselves.

ads in bathrooms stalls piss me off in the same way....

[gldstwmn]

yes, and the Passion came out several months ago and CMT (and don't ask me why??) did a whole show on it this weekend...

That's not a valid comparison. You're talking about an interpretation of the bible. :confused:

[gldstwmn]

Exactly. All they've been able to come up with is that Moore claims Saudi's and bin Laden's were allowed to leave while commercial airspace was closed, but that's a lie, he never said that in the film. He said the flights occurred after September 13th and then showed the flight lists on the screen. :shrug:

Saudi's did fly during the ban and I've posted the link to that info twice but Moore doesn't say that in the film.

[gldstwmn]

would that I really could...this goes back to my previous post about human beings inability to effect large-scale change

Oh Carne? Where are you?

[Bella Figura]

Oh Carne? Where are you?

... :lol: :shrug: :lol: he's online getting his tickets for Camden

[dissention]

Saudi's did fly during the ban and I've posted the link to that info twice but Moore doesn't say that in the film.

From the Snopes site, right? I read about a month ago. :) There are Saudi flights that are unaccounted for that may have left before the ban was lifted.

[gldstwmn]

yes, but he used my entertainment time and dollars to preach to me...and the whole "don't watch it arguement" does not work if you want to be up on current events

Well, the film is available for download on the internet for free...

[Bella Figura]

That's not a valid comparison. You're talking about an interpretation of the bible. :confused:

yes, Mel's film is much more extreme but both films are packaged as entertainment and are really just sermons in disguise...and that's where my personal agnst comes from, not who's telling the truth here but why are you bothering me with your agenda to begin with...and just to reiterate, the "just don't watch it" arguement does not apply here due to the fact MM's film is current events not to mention political in nature and I try to keep up with current events...so I used my precious weekend time to view this movie.

[CarneVaca]

Look at Clinton! Sheesh...he was a sexual deviant who lied under-oath to the American people, on camera! TWICE!

Whoa, wait a minute... "Sexual deviant!?" What is the basis for that characterization? Do you consider oral sex deviant behavior?

[Bella Figura]

Well, the film is available for download on the internet for free...

now I find out!!! :shocked: but I only illegally download FM music

[strandinthewind]

Again, you lied and said that Iraq was playing games with the inspectors; it was not.

And while Blix stated that they were given no new info whatsoever, it simply did not mean that they had resumed weapons development or possessed any new weapons. Now that we've been in there, he says that all of the info Iraq provided was correct and there was nothing new. He also calle dout the administration and said that they lied about Saddam destroying or hiding the weapons; he said it was impossible.

You have not addressed my point and are talking about something competely different that I was. You seem to think I said SH blocked Hans Blix and his team when they were there. I never said that.

Here was the interchange (please check for accuracy because cutting and pasting can lead to errors - I had to eliminate the emoticons because it would not let me post with them). I think you will see I was never talking about the actual inspections Blix conducted when I said that SH was playing cat and mouse with the palaces, I said I was referring to when the UN started inspections up again, SH told them his palaces were off limits. I realize he later caved in on this issue, but that he even brought it up indicates he was not compliant with the UN's order that he demonstrate he had disarmed and that he allow inspectors in so they could see for themselves. Thus, I was not lying then and I am not lying now. Sadly, you will never see that. But, I do and I know you do as well.
_____________________________________________________________

Post No. 275, I said:
But SH did not give them accrate info in the beginning and he was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again. IT WAS HIS BURDEN - he did not meet it. He alone is responsible for the fate of Iraq.

You replied in Post No. 282:
Foul!

That is an outright lie and you know it.
I responded in Post No. 285:

Once again, you are just wrong. SH submitted all those docs and the CD's of them and it was proven they were the same stuff he sent before. Then he started his "my palaces are exempt" schpeel when it was determined his palaces were more than just residences. Do you not remember that? That is what I am talking about. Moreover, he could lead Hans Blix all over the country and take him to tea, that does not mean he met his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD. To do that he had to produce the destroyes stuff, pictures of it, etc. He did not do that. Instead, once again, he said to the inspectors, you can go here go here go here. That was NOT meeting his burden. Why are you so willing to let him off on that?

You responded in Post No. 289:

Again, your previous statement is an outright lie. I know you like to spin, but this is getting absurd. He NEVER played the "you can go here but not here" game leading up to the invasion. You lied, simply put.

I responded in Post No. 302:

I cannot believe you do not remember Iraq at first refusing to allow any inspections in the so called palaces (I think there were over 50 of them), which were not just homes but war rooms and possible storage sites. Then, after negotiatons with the UN and the amassing of like 200,000 plus troops on his borders, SH caved. So, I think I am correct in saying in the beginning SH was not cooperative. He tried the same crap he had been trying for the last 11 years and the world refused to put up with it.

And, I have never said SH was not cooperating with Blix. Here is an interview with Blix http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/19/ip.00.html Blix says SH was cooperating in the process, etc. - it actually sounded cagey to me - but he cooperated on the surface nonetheless. But, NONE of that answers the main question of the need for inspectors in the first place. Again, why did he not produce the required evidence instead of making us look for it - it was SH's burden - you still have not answered that one. The answer is he did not.

You responded on Post No. 313:

I can't believe you still continue to lie about Saddam playing games leading up to the invasion.

I advocated some sort of military action immediately, but again, I did not support what the admin. did in November. I thought it was a waste and had no purpose.

I responded in Post No. 320:

You honestly do not remember SH saying the palaces were off limits and then negotiating to let the inpsectors in them. That is game playing pure and simple. AND - I am still waiting for your explanation regarding why you give SH a free pass on failing to meet his burden and instead making the inspectors look for a needle in a haystack

I also responded in Post No. 323 (to your assertion that I lied in Post No. 318):

I did not. SH originally would not let the inspectors into his so called palaces. That and the regurgitation of the same 1998 documents is what I was referring to. Prove me wrong. prove that he did not do that. You cannot and you know it.

You responded in Post No. 324:

I will tomorrow, I don't have the energy right now; it's past midnight.

And besides, this thread has gotten too nasty even for my tastes.

And the Post No. 326:

I certainly can and will.

I responded in Post No. 334:

I agree, but when you call someone a liar and do not back it up, you should not be surprised when they call you on it. Actually, I think other than that, we were being civil for us

You responded in Post No. 336:

No, it's gotten a quite nasty and I'm not too keen on it.

I've posted so much in the past that refute what you posted as fact when it comes to Saddam and inspections, if you haven't read it, it's your problem and not mine. If I have to, I'll post it again tomorrow, but not now because I'm tired.

I responded in Post No. 338:

I am sorry if the truth that SH played cat and mouse with the palaces in the beginning of the negotiations for inspections does not fit into your points. But it is the truth as best as I remember it. I cannot change that. Again, I am not arguing that SH did not cooperate with Blix. I am arguing about the negotiations for the inpesctions. And you have never answered in this thread or anywhere else why SH never produced evidence that he destroyed his WMD - which was his burden for 11 years to do. I think that is an important point because if he had done that, none of this would have happened. It just amazes me how people (not necessarily you) are just willing to let him slide on that one and instead focus on the inspections. But, I thijnk I have angered you by putting you in a corner. That is interesting to me because I always concede a poit when I am wrong. I do not understand when others cannot. Again, whenever you are ready to prove SH did not play cat and mouse a the beginning of the negotiations for the inspectors and when you are willing to provide an explanation of why SH did not meet his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD or even that we did in the 1998 bombing, I am all ears. But, if you want, we can drop this right now with the full knowledge that it will only come up again

You then responded in Post No. 346:

I told you repeatedly last night that I would tackle your lies today because I was tired. If that's not good enough for you, tough tacos. It may be the truth as you best remember it, but it isn't the truth according to the facts.

I then responded in post No. 349:

Here are some quotes from Bix when he was reporting to the UN -they indicate that although SH was cooperating with access to sites, he was once again not meeting his burden of proving the destruction of the WMD, which according the bolded text, Blix indicates SH was not doing:

Blix's report hinted at undisclosed weapons but provided no fresh evidence. In carefully modulated, neutral language, Blix said he found circumstantial evidence that Iraq could hold a devastating arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq provided a "workable environment" for inspections and did not directly refuse access to any weapons site, but he also described some "disturbing incidents and harassments" such as anti-inspection demonstrations.

The meat of the report was a list of Iraqi weapons the U.N. team had not been able to find or the destruction of which could not be verified.

Blix disclosed, for example, that there is a "discrepancy of 6,500 bombs" between the number of chemical weapons explosives Iraq admitted to having, and that Saddam has accounted for.

"The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons," he said.

Blix noted that the 122 mm chemical rockets inspectors found "could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets ... points to the issue of several thousand ... chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."

Also, according to Blix, "Iraq has provided little evidence for production of (8,500 liters of anthrax and other biological toxins) and no convincing evidence for its destruction."

He added, "There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date."

On the issue of whether Saddam was attempting to build nuclear weapons, U.N. atomic weapons official Mohamed ElBaradei said investigations were under way despite some interference by Iraqi officials. He said, however, that inspectors needed more time.

"We should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program," he said.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistor...al/iraq/1753597
_______________________________________________________________

Here is another article with quotations from Blix's report to the UN:

Monday, 27 January, 2003, 17:34 GMT
Inspections report: Key points
Chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix and Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear agency, presented their crucial report on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq to the UN Security Council on 27 January.
Here are the key points:

Statement by Dr Blix:

Iraq has provided co-operation with regards to the inspection process, but it still needs to co-operate in matters of substance.

Iraq has provided access to all sites inspectors have wanted to inspect and the environment has been "workable".

There was a "sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time."

However, Iraq appeared "not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

Iraq has failed to comply with the inspectors' request to deploy a U2 plane to carry out aerial imagery and surveillance.

There have been recent incidents of harassment and demonstrations against the inspectors - these are unlikely to have occurred without the initiative of the Iraqi authorities. Iraq is aware allegations that the inspections serve intelligence purposes are untrue.
" Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament which was demanded of it "

Dr Hans Blix

Iraq's 7 December, 2002, weapons declaration still leaves questions unanswered.

Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs.

Iraq said VX nerve gas it produced was never turned into weapons - Unmovic (the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) has information which conflicts with this account.

Iraq has failed to account for supplies of anthrax it said it had produced and later destroyed. There are "strong indications" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it admitted and might still have some stocks.

Iraq has imported banned items, including 300 rocket engines, as recently as December, 2002, which could be used in a missile programme.

Regarding the recent discovery of undeclared documents on nuclear development in an Iraqi scientist's home, "there can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items".

Inspectors have requested 11 private interviews with Iraqi scientists, all of which have been turned down.

Statement by Dr ElBaradei:

Iraq's 2002 declaration did not answer questions which have been outstanding since inspectors were barred from returning to Iraq in 1998.

Good progress has been made during the latest inspections.

No prohibited nuclear activities have been identified during the inspections, but Baghdad needs to be more "pro-active" during further inspections.

"We have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

Inspectors "should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program".

"Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course."
Another "few months" for inspections "would be a valuable investment because they could help us avoid a war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2698857.stm

____________________________________________________________

So, while Iraq was giving Blix and his team access, SH was not meeting his burden of providing the proof that these weapons and other materials had been destroyed. Blix says this repeatedly in January 2003. So, I think it cannot be said SH was cooperating 100% when he was not providing the requested evidence Blix was calling for?

In any event, my earlier point was not that SH was not providing access to Blix, it was that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back in, SH initially refused to allow them access to his palaces. THe UN balked at this and noted SH's palaces were more than homes, they were potential storage sites and war rooms and could contain important documents. SH caved on this initial demand when the UN refuted it and he say the 200,000 plus troops amassing on his borders. I think that SH initial refusal to allow access to his palaces indicates he was up to his old games again.

I am unsure how that makes me a liar and I would appreciate a retraction
___________________________________________________________________________

You answered this in Post No. 351:

"Again, you lied about Iraq playing games with inspections."
________________________________________________________________

As evidenced above, I was talking about the initial negotiations before the inspections. During those, SH tried to limit access to his palaces. NOTHING you have cited refutes that. Instead you go on about SH actually limiting Blix while he was there, which I never said. So, I am not lying and I wish you would stop saying so.

Interestigly, in the January 2003, report to the UN, Blix does say he was limited in certain aspects and he again says SH was not forthcoming to meet his burden. Those statements are a FAR cry from the your statement in Post No. 282 to support your, not my, point that "Hans Blix and the UN refute your claim 100%."

I will be awaiting the apology because you are dead wrong and have falsely accused my with derision of lying when I did no such thing. Shame on you.

[dissention]

and just to reiterate, the "just don't watch it" arguement does not apply here due to the fact MM's film is current events not to mention political in nature and I try to keep up with current events...so I used my precious weekend time to view this movie.

Of course it applies. You can always stay home and browse the internet to see what Moore is talking about, no one is forcing you to pay money to see something.

[CarneVaca]

Bull****. If you're opposed to one then you propose the other. He's against Bush, so he supports Kerry.

If you're opposed to one, you "propose" the other? That is shockingly narrow, even for a republican.

I oppose both of them. What do you say about that?

[gldstwmn]

now I find out!!! :shocked: but I only illegally download FM music

It's legal. Moore himself put it online because he wants everyone to have access to it. :)

[CarneVaca]

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. Bush or Kerry are going to win the presidency. SO...if you are against BUSH, then by default you have to be FOR the other candidate. It's that simple. Getting Bush out of office means that he is FOR Kerry. DURRRRRRR!

Nonsense. See my previous post.

[dissention]

You have not addressed my point and are talking about something competely different that I was. You seem to think I said SH blocked Hans Blix and his team when they were there. I never said that.

You still continue to lie, unbelievable. You said, and I quote:

"He was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again."

That is utterly false and you know it. That's what I took issue with because it's a total fabrication. If don't want to admit that, fine, but it's still a lie.

[mylittledemon]

Well there's no swaying here either way. People believe what they want to, blindly or not. I'm going to bow out of this discussion considering I'm starting to insult fellow Ledgies, and that's not the idea, nor my original intention.

What I'm proud of the most is, at least we are all taking a stand on something. And that's better than not voting at all. Those are the worst kind.

As for my comments about Clinton being a sexual deviant. Yes...oral sex with another woman counts. Especially when you are MARRIED. Hello?!

Michael Moore is a business man in the end. He's trying to make a living. Maybe it's not "all" about the money, but in the END he's a guy trying to make a dollar like the rest of us.

And opposing Bush means you are a proponent of Kerry? I don't believe that view is "shockingly narrow." It's logical and realistic! We all know that 3rd party candidates NEVER win. They merely take votes away one from the other. It's always Rep vs. Democrat, and one of them WILL win. So you take the lesser of the two evils and pick one. It's your right and privilege as an American to do so.

[Bella Figura]

Of course it applies. You can always stay home and browse the internet to see what Moore is talking about, no one is forcing you to pay money to see something.

I could not have done that and kept up with this thread...but the money thing is a good point, I'm sure MM would not be happy if people just downloaded his film...and I don't want to be dismissed because I illegally pirated his work...

never mind, glddstwmn just pointed out the film for free but to me it's still a sermon, free or not. Church is free too...

so now I'm even more pissed off :mad:

[dissention]

It's legal. Moore himself put it online because he wants everyone to have access to it. :)

Kinda shoots down mylittledemon's argument that this is all about money, eh?

[dissention]

I could not have done that and kept up with this thread

We all did it on a regular basis with every other political thread. There's nothing in Moore's film that we haven't seen or heard before, sans the Iraq footage and Lila Lipscomb.

[strandinthewind]

You still continue to lie, unbelievable. You said, and I quote:

"He was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again."

That is utterly false and you know it. That's what I took issue with because it's a total fabrication. If don't want to admit that, fine, but it's still a lie.

I said it in reference to the initial negotiations - I REPEATEDLY said I was not referring to the actual time Blix was there. If I ever did, show me where I did. You cannot. But, you cannot ever admit being wrong, which you are here and you know it and the interchage posted above proves it.

[Bella Figura]

dissention says "We all did it on a regular basis with every other political thread. There's nothing in Moore's film that we haven't seen or heard before, sans the Iraq footage and Lila Lipscomb."

yes, but I am a casual purueser of the political scene at best but I do have an interest in current events so sometimes they collide...

My interest lie more in philosophy and human nature (anthopology) which are in themselves lots of intensive reading so to add political articles would truly fry my brain...

[CarneVaca]

Well there's no swaying here either way. People believe what they want to, blindly or not. I'm going to bow out of this discussion considering I'm starting to insult fellow Ledgies, and that's not the idea, nor my original intention.

With all due respect, it seems all the conservatives ever seem to be able to do around here is to jump in, make claims of lies and distortions, and when they are challenged to back up the claims, they bow out.

Doesn't make your side of the aisle look that good, does it?

[dissention]

I said it in reference to the initial negotiations - I REPEATEDLY said I was not referring to the actual time Blix was there. If I ever did, show me where I did. You cannot. But, you cannot ever admit being wrong, which you are here and you know it and the interchage posted above proves it.

Bull****. You never differentiated, you're trying to do it now to cover your ass over what you lied about. He never played those games even during the initial negotiations. Didn't you read the quotes I posted? I can post plenty of articles where Blix said he expects full cooperation with the negotiations and plenty of articles where he states that's what he received.

[mylittledemon]

Well there's no swaying here either way. People believe what they want to, blindly or not. I'm going to bow out of this discussion considering I'm starting to insult fellow Ledgies, and that's not the idea, nor my original intention.

What I'm proud of the most is, at least we are all taking a stand on something. And that's better than not voting at all. Those are the worst kind.

As for my comments about Clinton being a sexual deviant. Yes...oral sex with another woman counts. Especially when you are MARRIED. Hello?!

Michael Moore is a business man in the end. He's trying to make a living. Maybe it's not "all" about the money, but in the END he's a guy trying to make a dollar like the rest of us.

And opposing Bush means you are a proponent of Kerry? I don't believe that view is "shockingly narrow." It's logical and realistic! We all know that 3rd party candidates NEVER win. They merely take votes away one from the other. It's always Rep vs. Democrat, and one of them WILL win. So you take the lesser of the two evils and pick one. It's your right and privilege as an American to do so.

PS. Lindsey Buckingham for president!

[Bella Figura]

With all due respect, it seems all the conservatives ever seem to be able to do around here is to jump in, make claims of lies and distortions, and when they are challenged to back up the claims, they bow out.

Doesn't make your side of the aisle look that good, does it?

last man standing wins!! :blob1:

[dissention]

Well there's no swaying here either way. People believe what they want to, blindly or not. I'm going to bow out of this discussion considering I'm starting to insult fellow Ledgies, and that's not the idea, nor my original intention.

What I'm proud of the most is, at least we are all taking a stand on something. And that's better than not voting at all. Those are the worst kind.

As for my comments about Clinton being a sexual deviant. Yes...oral sex with another woman counts. Especially when you are MARRIED. Hello?!

Michael Moore is a business man in the end. He's trying to make a living. Maybe it's not "all" about the money, but in the END he's a guy trying to make a dollar like the rest of us.

And opposing Bush means you are a proponent of Kerry? I don't believe that view is "shockingly narrow." It's logical and realistic! We all know that 3rd party candidates NEVER win. They merely take votes away one from the other. It's always Rep vs. Democrat, and one of them WILL win. So you take the lesser of the two evils and pick one. It's your right and privilege as an American to do so.

PS. Lindsey Buckingham for president!

Still not backing up your claim that Kerry would apologize to terrorists, eh?

Still not explaining any of the lies or half-truths you saw in the film, huh?

[Bella Figura]

And opposing Bush means you are a proponent of Kerry? I don't believe that view is "shockingly narrow." It's logical and realistic! We all know that 3rd party candidates NEVER win. They merely take votes away one from the other. It's always Rep vs. Democrat, and one of them WILL win. So you take the lesser of the two evils and pick one. It's your right and privilege as an American to do so.



this is why we need to redo the whole thing, this two party system is beginning to fail the American people...

[gldstwmn]

I could not have done that and kept up with this thread...but the money thing is a good point, I'm sure MM would not be happy if people just downloaded his film...and I don't want to be dismissed because I illegally pirated his work...

never mind, glddstwmn just pointed out the film for free but to me it's still a sermon, free or not. Church is free too...

so now I'm even more pissed off :mad:

Well, you realize that no matter what anyone says, with this argument, you're setting yourself up not to be happy.
I wish you happiness. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Bull****. You never differentiated, you're trying to do it now to cover your ass over what you lied about. He never played those games even during the initial negotiations. Didn't you read the quotes I posted? I can post plenty of articles where Blix said he expects full cooperation with the negotiations and plenty of articles where he states that's what he received.

Did you not read the interchanges I posted above. I explained more than once I was NOT talking about when Blix was there. i was talking about when SH tried to negotiate his palaces out of the areas for inspection. I am a little taken aback that you would be co cruel to me in this. I ALWAYS argue with a stright face. I always back down when I am wrong. AND - I have never lied. I have misremembered, but I willingly have admitted that in the past. Sadly, you cannot do the same - I think it is because you know to admit my point will lend creedence to W and the far left, which you are, can never do that.

[dissention]

Did you not read the interchanges I posted above. I explained more than once I was NOT talking about when Blix was there. i was talking about when SH tried to negotiate his palaces out of the areas for inspection. I am a little taken aback that you would be co cruel to me in this. I ALWAYS argue with a stright face. I always back down when I am wrong. AND - I have never lied. I have misremembered, but I willingly have admitted that in the past. Sadly, you cannot do the same - I think it is because you know to admit my point will lend creedence to W and the far left, which you are, can never do that. What a pity.

I'm done with this argument with you, Jason. You know I like you a helluva lot and I don't want to change that, even if you did lie. :xoxo:

[CarneVaca]

As for my comments about Clinton being a sexual deviant. Yes...oral sex with another woman counts. Especially when you are MARRIED. Hello?!

Hello?! yourself. You are confusing "deviance" with "infidelity." Two very different things. Something is deviant or isn't. It isn't only deviant if...

And opposing Bush means you are a proponent of Kerry? I don't believe that view is "shockingly narrow." It's logical and realistic! We all know that 3rd party candidates NEVER win. They merely take votes away one from the other. It's always Rep vs. Democrat, and one of them WILL win. So you take the lesser of the two evils and pick one.

You really have a problem with confusing things, don't you? You're confusing pragmatism now with conviction. As a result of my conviction, I oppose both Bush and Kerry. If I were pragmatic about voting, I would take one or the other.

The inability to tell the difference definitely qualifies as "shockingly narrow," even for a republican.

It's your right and privilege as an American to do so

SHow me in the constitution where it says that it is my right, or privilege, to vote either for a Democrat or a Republican. It is my right, not a privilege, to vote. Whom I vote for is also my right, but my right does not limit my choices to two. My right doesn't even prevent me from not voting.

By the way, a right is one thing. A privilege is another.

[gldstwmn]

We all did it on a regular basis with every other political thread. There's nothing in Moore's film that we haven't seen or heard before, sans the Iraq footage and Lila Lipscomb.

I also had never seen the military document before. It was quite shocking to me.
Also, many people's response was "We didn't know." "We never knew." Funny, that's the same thing a lot of people said after the Holocaust. But there I go with my Bush/Hitler thing again.

[Bella Figura]

Well, you realize that no matter what anyone says, with this argument, you're setting yourself up not to be happy.
I wish you happiness. :shrug:


no happiness for me, don't keep me doped with religion, sex (well maybe a little of that) and tv...John Lennon again. I want to be fully aware when they chop my head off with a sword ... you gotta love what the Italian said...

[dissention]

I also had never seen the military document before. It was quite shocking to me.
Also, many people's response was "We didn't know." "We never knew." Funny, that's the same thing a lot of people said after the Holocaust. But there I go with my Bush/Hitler thing again.

Yeah, that was new, too. And some of the info on Shrub's crappy oil companies was news to me.

[strandinthewind]

I'm done with this argument with you, Jason. You know I like you a helluva lot and I don't want to change that, even if you did lie. :xoxo:


I do like you too, but you calling me liar is utter and complete BS and I will not stand for it - you know me better than that. You have not and cannot supported you accusation despite my begging you to do so.

So walk away if you want. But, you walk away wrong. I have cleared my name from your lies about it.

Again, please show me where I said I was talking about Blix when I made the cat and mouse with the palaces statement and I will gladly call myself a liar. until then, do not call me a liar of this because that is hurtful, wrong, and untrue of you to do so and you know it.

[gldstwmn]

no happiness for me, don't keep me doped with religion, sex and tv. I want to be fully aware when they chop my head off with a sword...

Well...hope you make it to heaven. :angel:

[CarneVaca]

Dissention and Strand, enough! Time to :xoxo: and make up.

[strandinthewind]

Dissention and Strand, enough! Time to :xoxo: and make up.

Amen - detante already!!!!!!

[dissention]

I do like you too, but you calling me liar is utter and complete BS and I will not stand for it - you know me better than that. You have not and cannot supported you accusation despite my begging you to do so.

So walk away if you want. But, you walk away wrong. I have cleared my name from your lies about it.

Again, please show me where I said I was talking about Blix when I made the cat and mouse with the palaces statement and I will gladly call myself a liar. until then, do not call me a liar of this because that is hurtful, wrong, and untrue of you to do so and you know it.

Again, please show me facts that back up what you said about Saddam picking and choosing. You cannot because the chief weapons inspector disagrees and says that is not the case.

I don't walk away wrong, I walk away the same as I was when this thread was started. I pointed out what you said to be untrue and it is. It's nothing personal, but if you want to take it personally, do what you wish.

[Bella Figura]

Well...hope you make it to heaven. :angel:

sorry I edited while you commented here's my amended version

no happiness for me, don't keep me doped with religion, sex (well maybe a little of that) and tv...John Lennon again. I want to be fully aware when they chop my head off with a sword ... you gotta love what the Italian said...

[dissention]

Amen - detante already!!!!!!

Yeah, sure, reply before me so that I look like the asshole. :p :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Come on, guys! Don't make me get medieval on your asses.

[gldstwmn]

Well there's no swaying here either way. People believe what they want to, blindly or not. I'm going to bow out of this discussion considering I'm starting to insult fellow Ledgies, and that's not the idea, nor my original intention.

What I'm proud of the most is, at least we are all taking a stand on something. And that's better than not voting at all. Those are the worst kind.

As for my comments about Clinton being a sexual deviant. Yes...oral sex with another woman counts. Especially when you are MARRIED. Hello?!

Michael Moore is a business man in the end. He's trying to make a living. Maybe it's not "all" about the money, but in the END he's a guy trying to make a dollar like the rest of us.

And opposing Bush means you are a proponent of Kerry? I don't believe that view is "shockingly narrow." It's logical and realistic! We all know that 3rd party candidates NEVER win. They merely take votes away one from the other. It's always Rep vs. Democrat, and one of them WILL win. So you take the lesser of the two evils and pick one. It's your right and privilege as an American to do so.

PS. Lindsey Buckingham for president!

Ah. Go Cheney yourself.
http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/navigator/usa.gif

[CarneVaca]

Ah. Go Cheney yourself.
http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/navigator/usa.gif

:lol: :lol: :lol: Second time on this thread that I laughed out loud.

[dissention]

Ah. Go Cheney yourself.
http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/navigator/usa.gif

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Again, please show me facts that back up what you said about Saddam picking and choosing. You cannot because the chief weapons inspector disagrees and says that is not the case.

I don't walk away wrong, I walk away the same as I was when this thread was started. I pointed out what you said to be untrue and it is. It's nothing personal, but if you want to take it personally, do what you wish.

Here are some articles that go on about how the palaces were initially off limits, but through negotiation and I assert the gathering of troops on the borders, SH allowed them to be inspected. These articles show I was correct in my assertion that in the initial negitiations for inspection, SH did not want to include the palaces as places to be inspected. To me, that means SH was playing cat and mouse with the UN and the inspection process because these palaces were not just homes - they contained other governing aspects. SH knew that and tried to exclude them even though the inspectors wanted to look at them. It means SH was trying to get out of burden of proof set forth by the UN. Yes, he caved, but the initial monkeying around was bad faith by SH. That is all I was trying to say.

http://aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2002%20News%20archives/Oct%202002%20News/Oct%2012,%202002%20News.htm (search for the headline "Inspectors can visit palaces: Iraq" - then read on from there)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Southwest/09/27/us.iraq.un.language/

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848024.html

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0212/03/nation-26380.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.palaces/

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_02/2727.html

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/01/iraqandu.html

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1737283

http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/Sept%202002/US%20continues%20to%20press%20for%20UN%20resolution%20091702a.htm

There are more - these are just samples.

[Sugar]

Without doing any research whatsoever and relying on my spotty post-pregnancy memory, in a nutshell, it seems to me that after a somewhat long hiatus the UN decided to get inspectors back in to Iraq and that Saddam wasn't allowing the palaces to be searched, yada yada, yada, but that he eventually gave the inspectors carte blanche. Afterwards, the inspectors were taken out of Iraq prematurely because of the impending invasion.

Is that about right? Mind you I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but now I'm curious if what I remember what everyone else remembers.

[dissention]

Without doing any research whatsoever and relying on my spotty post-pregnancy memory, in a nutshell, it seems to me that after a somewhat long hiatus the UN decided to get inspectors back in to Iraq and that Saddam wasn't allowing the palaces to be searched, yada yada, yada, but that he eventually gave the inspectors carte blanche. Afterwards, the inspectors were taken out of Iraq prematurely because of the impending invasion.

Is that about right? Mind you I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but now I'm curious if what I remember what everyone else remembers.

Pretty much.

[dissention]

Here are some articles that go on about how the palaces were initially off limits, but through negotiation and I assert the gathering of troops on the borders, SH allowed them to be inspected. These articles show I was correct in my assertion that in the initial negitiations for inspection, SH did not want to include the palaces as places to be inspected. To me, that means SH was playing cat and mouse with the UN and the inspection process because these palaces were not just homes - they contained other governing aspects. SH knew that and tried to exclude them even though the inspectors wanted to look at them. It means SH was trying to get out of burden of proof set forth by the UN. Yes, he caved, but the initial monkeying around was bad faith by SH. That is all I was trying to say.

http://aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2002%20News%20archives/Oct%202002%20News/Oct%2012,%202002%20News.htm (search for the headline "Inspectors can visit palaces: Iraq" - then read on from there)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Southwest/09/27/us.iraq.un.language/

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848024.html

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0212/03/nation-26380.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.palaces/

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_02/2727.html

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/01/iraqandu.html

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1737283

http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/Sept%202002/US%20continues%20to%20press%20for%20UN%20resolution%20091702a.htm

There are more - these are just samples.

If that's all you were trying to say, you should've said it that way, not shrouded your statement to make it sound like Saddam was actually playing cat and mouse about the inspections. That being said, I fail to see how his saying the palaces were off limits constituted any sort of game he was playing with the inspectors. I think this whole argument boils down to perception and we don't perceive this situation the same way. Saddam allowed inspections wherever and whenever, so the point is rather moot. He had no knowledge of when they were going to inspect, no knowledge of hwere they were going to inspect, and he allowed them to inspect every time they asked to do so.

[strandinthewind]

If that's all you were trying to say, you should've said it that way, not shrouded your statement to make it sound like Saddam was actually playing cat and mouse about the inspections. That being said, I fail to see how his saying the palaces were off limits constituted any sort of game he was playing with the inspectors. I think this whole argument boils down to perception and we don't perceive this situation the same way. Saddam allowed inspections wherever and whenever, so the point is rather moot. He had no knowledge of when they were going to inspect, no knowledge of hwere they were going to inspect, and he allowed them to inspect every time they asked to do so.

I always said that the cat and mouse game was part of the initial negotiations. I explicitly said several times I was not talking about any other time. I even cited to Blix saying Iraq gave them unfettered access.

I think initially not wanting to allow the inpectors into the palaces is significant because the inspectors said such access was necessary. Yet, SH tried to disallow it. Yes, he caved in later, but his initial refusal was "cat and mouse" in that he would allow the inspectors here but not there, even though the inspectors said they needed to go to both. So, that he eventually caved in does not in any way negate my statement that in the initial negotiations, SH was playing cat and mouse with the inspectors, the inspection process, whatever you want to call it. The end result is the same because if SH had won this point, the inspectors would not be allowed in where they said they needed to go. That was bad faith on the part of SH that the end result (the eventual allwance of unfettered inspections) does not cure. He was in no position to negotiate anything under the newest UN Resolution.

[gldstwmn]

Without doing any research whatsoever and relying on my spotty post-pregnancy memory, in a nutshell, it seems to me that after a somewhat long hiatus the UN decided to get inspectors back in to Iraq and that Saddam wasn't allowing the palaces to be searched, yada yada, yada, but that he eventually gave the inspectors carte blanche. Afterwards, the inspectors were taken out of Iraq prematurely because of the impending invasion.

Is that about right? Mind you I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but now I'm curious if what I remember what everyone else remembers.

Spot on. :thumbsup:

[Sugar]

Thanks guys! Glad to see I've still got a couple brain cells left to rub together! :blob2:

But again, I'm not sure what the point is. This was Saddam's MO. When we didn't enforce things years before, why did we think he was going to comply now? Is this a reason to invade in 2004? Frankly, I don't think so, especially since he ultimately gave the inspectors carte blanche and ESPECIALLY since we had OTHER THINGS we should have been concentrating on.

[dissention]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Southwest/09/27/us.iraq.un.language/

Not once in that article does it say that Saddam denied access to the palaces.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848024.html?oneclick=true

This article states that Saddam had imposed restrictions on the palaces before the UN resolution allowing random searches was imposed, citing that those restrictions had been in place since Saddam found the US spies in '98. :wavey:

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0212/03/nation-26380.htm

This article simply proves that Saddam had accepted the UN resolutions new "anywhere-anytime" inspections policy. It also said that Saddam had cooperated fully and that such cooperation was "unprecedented."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.palaces/

This article says that a letter was sent from Saddam to the UN, allowing for them to inspect the palaces and accepting the terms of the new UN resolution. :shrug: Again, I fail to see what games he was palying. They wanted unfettered access, he gave it to them.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_02/2727.html

Same as above; Saddam agreed to allowing unfettered access and the UN inspectors had more power than ever.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/01/iraqandu.html

Seems to me that they were still working out the agreement diplomatically and UN inspectors believed that they would be given complete access.

"On the question of access," he said, "it was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. However, the memorandum of understanding of 1998 establishes special procedures for access to eight presidential sites."

The memo, which was signed by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations and the Iraqi government. sets out detailed procedures under which these sites are allowed to be searched, effectively ruling out unannounced visits.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1737283

"Inspectors had to wait 15 minutes before being given access to the compound, known as the Old Palace, while Iraqi officials sought permission from "higher authority" to let them in, said Dimitri Perricos, who led the inspection team at the palace.

"It was fine. We got permission at the end. We did not lose anything, because the site we wanted to inspect was under observation as we waited," Perricos told a news briefing."

That was the one time Blix referred to. Hardly a big deal, even according to the wepons inspector in charge. It did not say that Saddam refused, it said he was angry but complied.

http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/Sept%202002/US%20continues%20to%20press%20for%20UN%20resolution%20091702a.htm

The UN resolution had not been adopted at that point in time. :shrug:

After reading those articles, I still don't see your argument. :sorry:

[dissention]

I think initially not wanting to allow the inpectors into the palaces is significant because the inspectors said such access was necessary. Yet, SH tried to disallow it. Yes, he caved in later, but his initial refusal was "cat and mouse" in that he would allow the inspectors here but not there, even though the inspectors said they needed to go to both. So, that he eventually caved in does not in any way negate my statement that in the initial negotiations, SH was playing cat and mouse with the inspectors, the inspection process, whatever you want to call it. The end result is the same because if SH had won this point, the inspectors would not be allowed in where they said they needed to go. That was bad faith on the part of SH that the end result (the eventual allwance of unfettered inspections) does not cure. He was in no position to negotiate anything under the newest UN Resolution.

Sorry, I don't see that at all, especially from the articles you posted. Saddam had refused access, but then the UN passed a resolution allowing complete and total access; he complied with the resolution completely.

[strandinthewind]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Southwest/09/27/us.iraq.un.language/

Not once in that article does it say that Saddam denied access to the palaces.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848024.html?oneclick=true

This article states that Saddam had imposed restrictions on the palaces before the UN resolution allowing random searches was imposed, citing that those restrictions had been in place since Saddam found the US spies in '98. :wavey:

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0212/03/nation-26380.htm

This article simply proves that Saddam had accepted the UN resolutions new "anywhere-anytime" inspections policy. It also said that Saddam had cooperated fully and that such cooperation was "unprecedented."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.palaces/

This article says that a letter was sent from Saddam to the UN, allowing for them to inspect the palaces and accepting the terms of the new UN resolution. :shrug: Again, I fail to see what games he was palying. They wanted unfettered access, he gave it to them.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_02/2727.html

Same as above; Saddam agreed to allowing unfettered access and the UN inspectors had more power than ever.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/01/iraqandu.html

Seems to me that they were still working out the agreement diplomatically and UN inspectors believed that they would be given complete access.

"On the question of access," he said, "it was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. However, the memorandum of understanding of 1998 establishes special procedures for access to eight presidential sites."

The memo, which was signed by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations and the Iraqi government. sets out detailed procedures under which these sites are allowed to be searched, effectively ruling out unannounced visits.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1737283

"Inspectors had to wait 15 minutes before being given access to the compound, known as the Old Palace, while Iraqi officials sought permission from "higher authority" to let them in, said Dimitri Perricos, who led the inspection team at the palace.

"It was fine. We got permission at the end. We did not lose anything, because the site we wanted to inspect was under observation as we waited," Perricos told a news briefing."

That was the one time Blix referred to. Hardly a big deal, even according to the wepons inspector in charge. It did not say that Saddam refused, it said he was angry but complied.

http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/Sept%202002/US%20continues%20to%20press%20for%20UN%20resolution%20091702a.htm

The UN resolution had not been adopted at that point in time. :shrug:

After reading those articles, I still don't see your argument. :sorry:

You are not hinking in time. You are focusing only on the end results. Those articles state that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back into Iraq, SH said you cannot have access to my palaces. The inspectors said we want access to the palaces becuase they are not just homes. SH said no - there will be no access to the palaces. Then, after we amassed troops on its borders and after, I think, Kofi A. met with the Iraqis, they agreed to allow the inspectors to have access to the palaces. THis is the time frame I referenced. For SH to say he was not going to allow the inspectors into his multi-functional palaces, indicates he was trying to control where the inspectors could and could not go. He was playing "cat and mouse" with them in the sense that he knew they wanted to go there and he thought he could stop them. That was bad faith on his part, esp. after he said Iraq was willing to cooperate. etc.

So, he caved. Then, when they got there, the inspectors had access to the palaces. I have never argues they did not once they got there. All I am saying is if SH had had his way and the US and UN had not been adamant, the inspectors would never have been allowed access to the palaces despite their desire to do so.

That means SH initially tried to block the inspectors from inspecting all areas they wanted. He was made to allow them into the palaces. That was bad faith on his part and just another example of his unwillingness to meet his burden set by the UN.

[strandinthewind]

Thanks guys! Glad to see I've still got a couple brain cells left to rub together! :blob2:

But again, I'm not sure what the point is. This was Saddam's MO. When we didn't enforce things years before, why did we think he was going to comply now? Is this a reason to invade in 2004? Frankly, I don't think so, especially since he ultimately gave the inspectors carte blanche and ESPECIALLY since we had OTHER THINGS we should have been concentrating on.

I do not think it was a reason to invade immediately. My position is Kerry and Clinton's position - SH was a terrorist who needed to be removed - period. However, we should have waited for the inspections to finish and tried to get more of the world on our side and better prepare our military, esp. the National Guard, for the task. Instead, once W realized he had not made his case the first time at the UN, he used lies to demonstrate an exigent threat that was not there. That was a horrible thing for him to do and he should be impeached for it. But, that does not negate that SH needed to be reomced from power. It just means W committed bad acts.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry, I don't see that at all, especially from the articles you posted. Saddam had refused access, but then the UN passed a resolution allowing complete and total access; he complied with the resolution completely.

Yes he did enentually, but initially he did not want to. That is cat and mouse in that it is you can go here but there - I am in control and will not be told what to do :shrug: The end result does not cure his prior unwillingness which was bad faith. That is what I was talking about - nothing more.

[dissention]

You are not hinking in time. You are focusing only on the end results. Those articles state that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back into Iraq, SH said you cannot have access to my palaces. The inspectors said we want access to the palaces becuase they are not just homes. SH said no - there will be no access to the palaces. Then, after we amassed troops on its borders and after, I think, Kofi A. met with the Iraqis, they agreed to allow the inspectors to have access to the palaces. THis is the time frame I referenced. For SH to say he was not going to allow the inspectors into his multi-functional palaces, indicates he was trying to control where the inspectors could and could not go. He was playing "cat and mouse" with them in the sense that he knew they wanted to go there and he thought he could stop them. That was bad faith on his part, esp. after he said Iraq was willing to cooperate. etc.

So, he caved. Then, when they got there, the inspectors had access to the palaces. I have never argues they did not once they got there. All I am saying is if SH had had his way and the US and UN had not been adamant, the inspectors would never have been allowed access to the palaces despite their desire to do so.

That means SH initially tried to block the inspectors from inspecting all areas they wanted. He was made to allow them into the palaces. That was bad faith on his part and just another example of his unwillingness to meet his burden set by the UN.

We're hitting a snag because we don't see this affair eye to eye. I simply do not see it your way, end of story. You can talk about his bad faith and unwilligness to comply with the UN, but that's simply false, IMO. What's bad faith is having US spies in there inspecting. I hated Saddam, but if you want to call a spade a spade...

I simply do not see it as a game of cat and mouse. I see it as a dictator finding out that another country had sent spies into his country, he kicked them out, then agreed to allow them back in, replete with more power and authority. Sorry. :wavey:

[dissention]

Then, after we amassed troops on its borders and after, I think, Kofi A. met with the Iraqis, they agreed to allow the inspectors to have access to the palaces.

You'll have to help me out, Jason. I read each of those articles and not once did I read that.

[strandinthewind]

We're hitting a snag because we don't see this affair eye to eye. I simply do not see it your way, end of story. You can talk about his bad faith and unwilligness to comply with the UN, but that's simply false, IMO. What's bad faith is having US spies in there inspecting. I hated Saddam, but if you want to call a spade a spade...

I simply do not see it as a game of cat and mouse. I see it as a dictator finding out that another country had sent spies into his country, he kicked them out, then agreed to allow them back in, replete with more power and authority. Sorry. :wavey:

No it is not. It is cat and mouse with the sites the inspectors said they needed to go to, regardless of any prior action and even if the prior people were spies, Blix and company certainly were not. In the end, SH had no right to say he would disallow anything; It was his burden and he minced words and played cat and mouse about meeting it. No one seems willing to acknowledge that it was his burden - for the life of me I cannot understand that :shrug: But, it was.

In any event, my version, which is factually correct no two ways about that, hardly rises to the level of the outright lie you accused me of :shrug:

[The Tower]

With all due respect, it seems all the conservatives ever seem to be able to do around here is to jump in, make claims of lies and distortions, and when they are challenged to back up the claims, they bow out.

Doesn't make your side of the aisle look that good, does it?

This is soooo true and is the best thing I read in the last, what is it now- 2,000 pages?, of this thread.

Sorry, Dissention and Strand, but your back and forth on Saddam Hussein is starting to have the same pride/ego factor as Nader running for President again...

:wavey: :sorry: :laugh:

[dissention]

In any event, my version, which is factually correct no two ways about that, hardly rises to the level of the outright lie you accused me of :shrug:

That's a matter of opinion, even though I believe you exaggerated it greatly to fit your argument. However, we are going nowhere with this, so I say we argue over something else. :laugh:

[dissention]

Sorry, Dissention and Strand, but your back and forth on Saddam Hussein is starting to have the same pride/ego factor as Nader running for President again...

:wavey: :sorry: :laugh:

I agree...which is why I tried to end it quite a few times by agreeing to disagree. But, to no avail. :laugh: :lol: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

You'll have to help me out, Jason. I read each of those articles and not once did I read that.

But, I will never convince you if, as you stated earlier you will never believe that SH's initial refusal to allow complete and open inspections of his multi-functional palaces was not bad faith. I kind of got that you thought he was correct in this initial refusal because the U.S. allegedly tried to put spies in there. Personally, I would not blame us if we did given his unwillingness to cooperate and meet his burden under the UN resolutions :shrug:

In any event, no amount of articles will prove my point to you if you do not believe that SH was in bad faith. I cannot see how you can think that he was not in bad faith because it is so apparent to me, but that is the way it is for you. I mean don't you think SH should have said, "I will do anything to avoid war, here is my country come on in and here is everything I have - See there is nothing here like you thought." If he had done that, W would have had no leg to stand on. But, initially he did not do that. He also, according to Blix's January 2003 UN report (cited earlier) , was not meeting his burden and putting up the evidence Blix requested despite the unfettered access SH was allowing. Again, cat and mouse. All in all, SH was an idiot, a terrorist, and a dangerous person. All he had to do was cooperate and when given one final chance he starts his "you can go here but not here" game playing, which he admittedly later gave up.

Did this justify an immediate invasion - probably not. I think we should have let the inspectors continue - they only had something like two months to go. What would that have hurt us? Nothing IMO and especially now in hindsight. But, history is what it is and we did not wait. That is sad to me.

[strandinthewind]

I agree...which is why I tried to end it quite a few times by agreeing to disagree. But, to no avail. :laugh: :lol: :wavey:

Whatever. You relied after I initially offered. I was responding to you :D .

But, I agree no more. Let's not say one more word from here on.

[dissention]

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/179/world/Reports_say_billions_of_dollar:.shtml

Reports say billions of dollars of Iraqi money unaccounted for
By Associated Press, 6/27/2004 21:55

Billions of dollars belonging to Iraq is not accounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was given responsibility by the United Nations for the country's finances, British lawmakers and aid activists said Monday.

There are glaring gaps in the handling of $20 billion generated by Iraq's oil and other sources since the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein ended last year, according to reports from the Liberal Democrats, Britain's third-largest political party, and Christian Aid.

The Christian Aid report also said the majority of Iraq's reconstruction projects have been awarded to U.S. companies, which charge up to 10 times more than Iraqi firms.

''For the entire year that the CPA has been in power in Iraq, it has been impossible to tell with any accuracy what the CPA has been doing with Iraq's money,'' said Helen Collison from Christian Aid.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1248753,00.html

Billions of revenue from oil 'missing'
Stephen Bates and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday June 28, 2004
The Guardian

Christian Aid, in a report today, claims that the US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority, which hands over power to an interim administration in Iraq this week, is in flagrant breach of the UN security council resolution which gave it control of the country's oil revenues.

Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, stated that the money should be spent in the interests of the Iraqi people and independently audited, but an auditor was appointed only in April.

The charity quoted an unnamed UN diplomat as saying: "We only have the total amounts and movements in and out of the development fund. We have absolutely no knowledge of what purposes they are for and if these are consistent with the security council resolution."

Last October, Christian Aid revealed that $4bn of oil revenues were unaccounted for, but although procedures have been tightened up, the charity said, "we still do not know exactly how Iraq's money has been earned, which companies have won the contracts that it has been spent on, or whether this spending was in the interests of the Iraqi people."

According to the coalition's latest figures, the development fund has received $10.7bn. Yet it also admits that $12.5bn has been generated since June 2003.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373299955

Charity hits at coalition over spending of Iraq oil revenues
By Gareth Smyth in Beirut and Thomas Catan in Washington
Published: June 28 2004 0:14
Last Updated: June 28 2004 0:14

"In the run-up to the handover, billions more dollars have been hastily allocated to projects that do not appear to have been properly planned," the report said. "This lack of accountability creates an environment ripe for corruption and theft at every level."

After an initial report by Christian Aid last October, in which the charity said $4bn in Iraqi oil revenues were unaccounted for, the CPA began publishing some figures showing how much money flowed into the Development Fund for Iraq and how much was being spent.

In Monday's report, however, Christian Aid said this disclosure remained "woefully inadequate" and claimed it was "almost impossible to work out what Iraq is earning from oil" using the figures.

Last week, the FT published an internal report by KPMG auditors working for the International Advisory and Monitoring Board in which they reported facing "resistance" from CPA officials and called its accounting methods "inadequate" and "prone to error".

[gldstwmn]

I do not think it was a reason to invade immediately. My position is Kerry and Clinton's position - SH was a terrorist who needed to be removed - period.

Foul. That is factually incorrect. :distress:

[dissention]

Foul. That is factually incorrect. :distress:

It's no use, darling. :xoxo: :wavey:

[Rob67]

I guess you didn't benefit from Allah's wonderful tax cuts, eh? Poor thing.

Glad to know that you found the time to post a ****ty op-ed in your busy life. :wavey:


Why is it ****ty?

[strandinthewind]

Foul. That is factually incorrect. :distress:

Well, SH clearly was a terrorist, so I do not think that is what you mean by factually incorrect - if you do, please explain.

As for the rest, I just posted a few days ago that Clinton agreed with W's position that SH needed to be removed because he was a terrorist who did horrible acts and after 9/11 could no longer be trusted with the notion that he might give the WMD to rogues. He just disagreed with the timing of the removal. He said he would have waited until the inspections ended. But do not take my word for it - here it is from the horse's mouth :laugh:

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq

Kerry voted for the war, thought SH had WMD and was a real threat (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html ) - he also voted to give W the pwer to remove SH (which surely he knew W would do) Kerry just does not agree with W's timing and method. Actually, Kerry has said a few things on SH, so it is a little hard to follow - but I will still vote for him anyway :cool:
__________________________________________________________
So, I think what I said was true and without spin. If you know how Kerry and Clinton did not advocate his removal and just disagree with the timing, let's see the proof.

[gldstwmn]

Bumper sticker seen today when I was out driving around in the rain:

WITCHES DO IT IN CIRCLES


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Bumper sticker seen today when I was out driving around in the rain:

WITCHES DO IT IN CIRCLES


:lol: :lol: :lol:

WHERE was your digital camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[gldstwmn]

WHERE was your digital camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:


I know! :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Bumper sticker seen today when I was out driving around in the rain:

WITCHES DO IT IN CIRCLES


:lol: :lol: :lol:

kinda reminded me of the bumper sticker I saw on a tribal vehicle a few months back:

"Vegetarian-Indian for "He who too lazy to catch own food" :laugh:

Btw, Nothin' against anyone who is a Vegetarian.

[strandinthewind]

kinda reminded me of the bumper sticker I saw on a tribal vehicle a few months back:

"Vegetarian-Indian for "He who too lazy to catch own food" :laugh:

Btw, Nothin' against anyone who is a Vegetarian.

LMAO :laugh:

I once saw one on an old VW van being driven by an agin Marsha Marsha Marsha Brady look alike that said :Ban the Bomb - not the Baby!: :laugh:

I also saw one that sais "I'd rather be spreadng cream cheese on an hermaphrodite" :shocked: :laugh:

Sick - just sick :laugh: :laugh:

[Sugar]

One of my favorite bumper stickers:

YOU! Outta the gene pool! :lol:

[estranged4life]

should be a bumper sticker:

Stupidity is not against the law...You're free to go.

[Rob67]

Exactly.

Rob brought up the moore film in this thread, called it "ridiculous," and refuses to explain how it is ridiculous. He says it is full of half truths and lies, yet can't, or won't, point any out. I suspect he's waiting for Faux News to post their comprehensive assessment of the film. Post something original for once, not the ramblings of every other raging conservative.

**sigh** :shrug:

Apparently you have never read any of my posts, ever. Wasn't it both you and Carn that I had a decent discussion about the Passion and morality? I thought I expressed my opinions quite clearly there. And, by the way, Wasn't it YOU who had such strong opinions about that film and you HADN"T EVEN SEEN IT??? :]

Hypocritical...don't yah think???

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

:laugh: If that's the case (which I can assure you it isn't), you have something in common with us.



I did, there's nothing there. And there won't be anything substantial because you can't prove that he lied once in that film.

Ahem...and where exactly is the proof that we went to Afghanistan only to build a freakin pipe line? Ridiculous...

It was one big op-ed statement...which is fine. BUT, where were all the soldiers and parents of soldiers who support the war? I have run into far more of those then not.

Liberals....always bitching about this or that but never any constructive plans of their own...I wonder what Moore's long term plans for peace in the Middle East or containing fundamentalist terrorism are??? Or, Kerry's for that matter....

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

No, I want you to explain what you meant by ridiculous and mistruths. You brought it up here. You tell us here.

Or are you one of those kids who punches a guy in the face and runs as fast as he can? Because that's what you do when you post something and refuse to back it up when called on it.

Again...pretty funny that there has been absolutly no counter points to the thoughts conveyed in the article I originally posted...everything points back to Moore...a guy who has no problems getting rich off of "greedy" Americans but is quick to bash them abroad.

Interesting....

[Rob67]

I am well aware of the intolerance from both sides, believe me. I get it from the Democrats, the Republicans and the fascists. But rather than complain about it, I decide whether I want to continue participating in these discussions or to pass on them. Either decision is acceptable, as far as I can tell.

But coming on here just to tell the rest of us how much better you are because you see the error of our ways is a bit silly. If you don't want to participate, that is your choice. But what do you gain by telling us how intolerant we are and therefore you will no longer participate? Are we supposed to stop, reevaluate our behavior and try to reform? Is that your goal?

I just think it's sad that you decided on Sept. 11 that siding with the warmongers and the blood-thirsters was the way to respond to the attacks. You hit me, I hit you. Go ahead, hit me back and I will knock you down. As humans, we really haven't made as much progress as we give ourselves credit for, have we?

Sometimes, in life, you have to fight for what's right. Not fair, but true. Because no matter how much you want to sing Kum bi Ya and pass the peace pipe around, somebody hates you and will want to kill you...even liberals. How do you propose dealing with such fundamentalist religious fanaticism? Appeasment??? Yes, we've tried that. That led to the USS Cole, the first and second WTC attacks, etc...

And, I am tired of hearing this lame excuse that we "imfringe upon their culture" or "American cultural Imperialism"....Bullsh*t! Because of instantaneous communication/media and quick travel, the world is becoming a global culture and economy. We are not imposing our culture so much as they are choosing to embrace it. The world needs to move forward and roll with the changes. I blame the monarchies and regimes of nations in the Middle East and Africa that have pretty much enslaved their people and prevented them from entering the modern era. I think this backlash is part religious fundamentalism fueled by the monarchies that refuse to let go of power and the frustration of their people in not being seen as equals in the global arena. I believe our intentions are to break that control and allow those people to join the world stage and prosper with everyone else.

Something had to be done. The UN sure as hell wasn't going to do anything. And I could care less what France or Germany thinks about us. F them. It boils down to our own security as Americans first, the rest of the world second.

Our security depends on having these people join the rest of the world in modernization. Changing a form of government is not going to squash one's cultural identity. On the contrary, I think it will allow for it to strengthen. Look at the Japanese or the Germans since the 1940's and 50's. Have they lost touch with their respective "cultures?"

My two cents...

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

As much as I hate to admit it, you are correct. If you said I like W because:

he is strong on terror

the economy has gotten better

I support the war in Iraq

which are the usual iems, no one would have said "I respect your opinion" and here is why I do not think that. You would get pounced on. That is sad to me. And, although I try not to, I am guilty of it as well.

EXACTLY!

I have never pounced on anyone like that (and I challenge those to prove me wrong if you don't believe me). I have noticed this trend with both extremes, left and right. And this is why politics is a major turn off to most people. The lack of polite debate.

So much elitism and arrogance is sad.

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Yowsa... this is a doozy of a thread. I didn't see it when it was first posted, and now it's damn-near impossible to read every post from all 13 pages.

Anyway, people can say all they want about "liberals"... but I'm still proud to be called a liberal.
Social issues are what I care most about. Taxes, social security... that stuff takes a backseat.

I do not wish to see this country "whitewashed" by social conservatism and religious zealots.
Folks get up-in-arms about the Muslims and their extreme religious views, and yet completely overlook the very extreme religious views that are overtaking OUR country. Masked as "patriotism."

I'll say it until I'm blue in the face... no one... not even the leader of MY country... has the right to tell ME what I'm supposed to believe or who I'M allowed to marry.
And as biased as it may sound, I still firmly believe that a vote for George W. Bush is a vote for intolerance and prejudice.

If someone wants an extreme conservative in the White House, I can't stop them from voting for him, and I most likely can't change their minds.
All I can hope is that someday they'll wake up and see that life isn't all about who's going to raise or lower your taxes.

Johnny "Proud To Be A Bleeding Heart Liberal" Stew

I appreciate the response to the intitial thread and your views...

Rock on.

Rob :cool:

[Tango]

Not to me anyhow. I don't "hate" groups of people based on what their political party is. As far off as some of Carne's comments hit me, I can sometimes understand his extreme cynicism (ie, the one something to the effect of needing a draft to shake up people). But I really have a hard time with the classification system. All democrats are not "liberal." All republicans are not "conservative." In fact, I suspect most people of all parties fall somewhere in between, and the rhetoric of the extremes are just the loudest. You want to win them to "your side?" Communicate effectively. Don't kill 'em with hate messages, crude pictures and jokes.

You might enjoy reading a similar exchange about "us" vs "them" on another board.

http://piquant.us/mitm/000029.html

I had to laugh at a couple of the witticisms. Maybe it'll help you too:

Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, a loyal Republican, used to say: "We have two political parties in this country, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. I belong to the Stupid Party."

"I'd rather spend my weekends exterminating rats in the tunnels below Penn Station than read a book by either Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore."

I'm off to the tunnels. Have a good night!

[Rob67]

Not to me anyhow. I don't "hate" groups of people based on what their political party is. As far off as some of Carne's comments hit me, I can sometimes understand his extreme cynicism (ie, the one something to the effect of needing a draft to shake up people). But I really have a hard time with the classification system. All democrats are not "liberal." All republicans are not "conservative." In fact, I suspect most people of all parties fall somewhere in between, and the rhetoric of the extremes are just the loudest. You want to win them to "your side?" Communicate effectively. Don't kill 'em with hate messages, crude pictures and jokes.

You might enjoy reading a similar exchange about "us" vs "them" on another board.

http://piquant.us/mitm/000029.html

I had to laugh at a couple of the witticisms. Maybe it'll help you too:

Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, a loyal Republican, used to say: "We have two political parties in this country, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. I belong to the Stupid Party."

"I'd rather spend my weekends exterminating rats in the tunnels below Penn Station than read a book by either Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore."

I'm off to the tunnels. Have a good night!

Great post...I agree completely....

Rob :cool:

[dissention]

**sigh** :shrug:

Apparently you have never read any of my posts, ever. Wasn't it both you and Carn that I had a decent discussion about the Passion and morality? I thought I expressed my opinions quite clearly there. And, by the way, Wasn't it YOU who had such strong opinions about that film and you HADN"T EVEN SEEN IT??? :]

Hypocritical...don't yah think???

Rob :cool:

Not at all. As I've said numerous times, I watched the film, but fast-forwarded through the beatings and floggings. That wasn't my cup of tea. ;) Plus, I don't believe in God, Jesus, or the Bible, so I saw it as a piece of fiction.

[dissention]

Or, Kerry's for that matter....

Start here:

http://www.johnkerry.com

Methinks someone doesn't pay attention to anyone but Bush. If you had actually informed yourself about Kerry, you'd know exactly what his plans are. But you're simply another neocon with no credence. :wavey:

[Rob67]

Start here:

http://www.johnkerry.com

Methinks someone doesn't pay attention to anyone but Bush. If you had actually informed yourself about Kerry, you'd know exactly what his plans are. But you're simply another neocon with no credence. :wavey:

Been to his site and his economic recovery model is bogus, IMO. Plus, his proposals for Iraq stability are already enacted including NATO inclusion.

I would rather be a conservative open to actual ideas (not just Bush bashing) rather then a socialist liberal out of touch with history and reality! :xoxo:

Rob :cool:

[dissention]

I would rather be a conservative open to actual ideas

****, you don't even know what it means to be a conservative, do you? Talk about an oxy-moron. :wavey:

As for being a socialist liberal, "socialist liberals" are the only ones who are in touch with reality, my friend. Christ, you're the one out of touch with reality, you're a conservative living in a blue state. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

****, you don't even know what it means to be a conservative, do you? Talk about an oxy-moron. :wavey:

As for being a socialist liberal, "socialist liberals" are the only ones who are in touch with reality, my friend. Christ, you're the one out of touch with reality, you're a conservative living in a blue state. :wavey:

Oh honey. Stop banging your head against a wall. It's no use. :shrug:

[dissention]

Oh honey. Stop banging your head against a wall. It's no use. :shrug:

Good point. ;)

[Rob67]

****, you don't even know what it means to be a conservative, do you? Talk about an oxy-moron. :wavey:

As for being a socialist liberal, "socialist liberals" are the only ones who are in touch with reality, my friend. Christ, you're the one out of touch with reality, you're a conservative living in a blue state. :wavey:



Extremists are silly... :laugh:

[Rob67]

****, you don't even know what it means to be a conservative, do you? Talk about an oxy-moron. :wavey:

I don't? :confused: What does it mean, then, my liberal minded friend?

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

I don't? :confused: What does it mean, then, my liberal minded friend?

Rob :cool:


I would forward this definition:

"Conservatism or political conservatism can refer to any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. There are also a number of Conservative political parties in various countries. All of these are primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) identified with the political right.

Among the significant usages of the term "conservatism" are:

1. Institutional conservatism or conservatism proper - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. Some might criticize this kind of conservatism by saying that it is anti-ideological for emphasizing tradition over ideology.

2. Social conservatism or values conservatism - A defense of traditional values, especially religious and nationalistic values and traditional social norms.

3. Fiscal conservatism - Opposition to, or at least strong scepticism about, government debt, excessive government spending, and taxation."


I would definitley say that my beliefs fall under the third example, not so much the first two. Throw in a belief in a proactive, strong and fair foreign policy stance backed by examples and events throughout history.

On social issues, I tend to be split down the middle, depending on the issue. I have various stances ranging from moderate to even * gasp* liberal.

If this makes me conservative, fine. If not, then that’s fine as well. I try not to label myself. Extremists do a good enough job of telling everyone else what they are anyway.

Peace.