Cons starting to admit: Libs were right all along re: Iraq

[kramsret]

Some Key Conservatives Uneasy About Bush
Jul 11, 6:03 PM (ET)
By SCOTT LINDLAW

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040711/D83ORILG0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - When an influential group of conservatives gathers in downtown Washington each week, they often get a political pep talk from a senior Bush administration official or campaign aide. They don't expect a fellow Republican to deliver a blistering critique of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

But nearly 150 conservatives listened in silence recently as a veteran of the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations ticked off a litany of missteps in Iraq by the Bush White House.

"This war is not going well," said Stefan Halper, a deputy assistant secretary of state under President Reagan.

"It's costing us a lot of money, isolating us from our allies and friends," said Halper, who gave $1,000 to George W. Bush's campaign and more than $83,000 to other GOP causes in 2000. "This is not the cakewalk the neoconservatives predicted. We were not greeted with flowers in the streets." Notice he said "costing money". No mention of lives. The sick pathetic bastard.

Conservatives, the backbone of Bush's political base, are increasingly uneasy about the Iraq conflict and the steady drumbeat of violence in postwar Iraq, Halper and some of his fellow Republicans say. The conservatives' anxiety was fueled by the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal and has not abated with the transfer of political power to the interim Iraqi government.

Some Republicans fear angry conservatives will stay home in November, undercutting Bush's re-election bid.

"I don't think there's any question that there is growing restiveness in the Republican base about this war," said Halper, the co-author of a new book, "America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order."

Some Republicans dismiss the rift as little more than an inside-the-Beltway spat among rival factions of the GOP intelligentsia. Indeed, conservatives nationwide are still firmly behind Bush. A Pew Research Center poll last month found that 97 percent of conservative Republicans favored Bush over Kerry.

But anger is simmering among some conservatives.

"I am bitterly disappointed in his actions with this war. It is a total travesty," said Tom Hutchinson, 69, a self-described conservative from Sturgeon, Mo., who posted yard signs and staffed campaign phone banks for the Republican in 2000. Hutchinson said he did not believe the administration's stated rationales for the war, in particular the argument that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Hutchinson, a retired businessman and former college professor, said his unease with Iraq may lead him to do something he has not done since 1956: avoid the voting booth in a presidential election. Why not vote for Kerry? You'll vote for NO ONE, after lowering your standard last year to voting for BUSH?!? Sick pathetic bastard.

Jack Walters, 59, a self-described "classical conservative" from Columbia, Mo., said he hadn't decided which candidate to vote for.

"Having been through Vietnam, I thought no, never again," Walters said. "But here comes the same thing again, and I'm old enough to recognize the lame reasons given for going into Iraq, and they made me ill." Welcome to the real world. Repent, and you may avoid frying in Traitor Hell for all eternity

The tension has been building in official Washington, where conservative members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees have pressed the administration for answers on combat operations; disagreed with the Pentagon on troop levels; and expressed frustration with an administration they feel has shown them disdain by withholding information.

Chief political adviser Karl Rove's formula for re-election is primarily to push Bush's conservative base to the polls.

Another administration official involved in Bush's re-election effort has voiced concern that angry conservatives will sit out the election.

But Matthew Dowd, the Bush-Cheney campaign's chief strategist, described the fear of losing conservative support as "just ludicrous."

Bush is "as strong among conservative Republicans as any Republican president has been" - higher than President Reagan's approval among conservatives during his re-election campaign of 1984, Dowd said.Proof positive that the Republican party--the party of get-Clinton--are about as treasonous as they come. Sick pathetic bastards.

Yet, Halper said his critical review on the administration's performance on Iraq last week was met with expressions of support in the conservatives' weekly meeting, which is closed to journalists.

The marquee speaker sent by the administration was Eric Ciliberti, who spent several weeks in Iraq this year and told the audience of broad progress being made there.

Ciliberti complained to the group that those in the news media were not reporting the positive developments out of Iraq. Ciliberti did not return several calls late in the past week from a reporter seeking his account.

[Jayne B]

Ciliberti complained to the group that those in the news media were not reporting the positive developments out of Iraq. Ciliberti did not return several calls late in the past week from a reporter seeking his account.

See, Bush's loss of support is all the fault of those baskets in the liberal media. If they would only quit reporting what a goof Bush is, and how badly his administration has messed up on the war, the economy, and homeland security, if they'd quit harping at the Veep's insistence on AQ-WMD-Saddam links,... in other words, if they'd LIE.... he'd have more support.

It's all in how you look at it: Republicans want a President they LIKE, Dems want a President who can do the job.

[thaanatos]

It's all in how you look at it: Republicans want a President they LIKE, Dems want a President who can do the job.
shucks, and here I thought I wanted a President who did the job the way I liked......

[suedanim]

Is the current President doing the job the way you like thaanatos? Do you have no complaints about his performance or the performance of any of any in his administration?

[thaanatos]

Is the current President doing the job the way you like thaanatos? Do you have no complaints about his performance or the performance of any of any in his administration?
of course not, he is far too moderate.....I don't like the prescription drug program that gives free drugs to rich old people, I don't like the fact he hasn't lambasted the Republican Congress to control spending, and I wish he had handled the war differently (though I believe he was right to begin it).......but I wouldn't expect Kerry to do ANYTHING I was in favor of....

[suedanim]

though I believe he was right to begin it

Why was he right to begin it?

And isn't it he that requested the spending allocated by Congress?

[thaanatos]

Why was he right to begin it?
you don't leave a loaded shotgun lying in the middle of a playground....

And isn't it he that requested the spending allocated by Congress?

to my disgust, the Republican controlled Congress doesn't seem to need much incentive to spend more than they need to......

[suedanim]

But, Saddam's shotgun was unloaded, rusted out and the firing mechanism removed. And they knew that long before the war.

The Bush people predicted it would be a cakewalk before the war because of the intelligence they had at that time. No Navy, no Air Force.. wow!

The CIA has been ripped and blamed for the war... and gw is loving that, of course. But, that does not let him off the hook. He was told by his Ambassador to Iraq.. whose wife.. Valerie Plame was a CIA operative, there was no nuclear threat. What did his people do? Outted her.

The satellite photos were shoddy and not informative, yet they made up stories to fit. The weapons inspectors... all of them.. again and again.. said, we find nothing here..

Our own Air Force told gw.. the drones were not likely, could not happen. In fact.. the truth is.... Bush had much contradicting evidence....... and not enough convincing evidence for war. Yet, he and his people convinced the world and Congress by their rhetoric, their positions of trust and authority that what they were saying was valid. They so inflamed with fear the people of the US with the constant references to 9/11... too many and that includes Congress got suckered in.

Bush cannot possibly claim to the people of the US that the world is now a safer place. How sad is that? Really!

[sinterest]

Sue wins the debate hands down - (cheers are heard from the masses)

[thaanatos]

But, Saddam's shotgun was unloaded, rusted out and the firing mechanism removed. And they knew that long before the war.
not true.....

The Bush people predicted it would be a cakewalk before the war because of the intelligence they had at that time. No Navy, no Air Force.. wow!
and I distinctly recall hearing voices from the left saying we don't dare attack Baghdad because Saddaam would use his WMD on our troops.....

[lily]

Good argument Sue. Nit picker that I am, may I?

He was also warned that Urban Warfare was something that our troops were not prepared for, yet ignored.

and I distinctly recall hearing voices from the left saying we don't dare attack Baghdad because Saddaam would use his WMD on our troops.....

I admit to being memory challenged, but I don't recall this statement. I do recall the statement that his Republican Guard would defend Baghdad and there would the fierstest battle ever. Ah little did we know that after the photo op under the banner saying Mission Accomplised, that the fierstest battles would beginhttp://www.paranoidtruth.com/bboards/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif

Ok, spell check seems to be taking for ever. Somehow fierstest, just doesn't look right :dunno

[suedanim]

He was also warned that Urban Warfare was something that our troops were not prepared for, yet ignored.

True, true, with it seems like what.. about 10 or more Americans dying every week there now? And they die for what?

Tell me.. anyone... why is our American youth dying in Iraq? Why did so many of them die in the past year? I want to know.

[Atenhotep]

of course not, he is far too moderate.....

He's several sandwiches short of a picnic and you call him far too moderate?

Gotta love those Christians. :eyes

You people are evil.

[thaanatos]

You people are evil.
and sadly, Aten, you continue to be a bigot.....

[Atenhotep]

Evil trumps Christian hater so ... I'm ok with whatever you want to call me sweet pea.

[Atenhotep]

I wonder if FOX will report this story?

Republican Governor Criticizes Own Party

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticized the Bush administration on Wednesday, saying the government engages in wasteful spending and often gives money to ensure Republican votes.

The government doles out money "based on who will vote for us or for our party: in effect, we buy votes," Romney said in remarks prepared for delivery. "We fund programs that don't work. We tolerate abuse and cheating in the multiples of billions of dollars."

The GOP governor is a former businessman who was CEO and president of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (news - web sites) for the Olympic games.

Romney also criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, arguing that his ties to trial lawyers and labor unions make the Democratic candidate "too conflicted to be president."

The GOP governor said it is difficult for the four-term Massachusetts senator to take clear positions on issues such as health care and education based on his connections to unions.

"He wants a leaner government, but he can't face down the public employee unions. He is quick to point out the obvious flaws in the Iraq (news - web sites) military campaign, but slow to tell us what he would do from here, for he wishes to appease as long as possible both those in his party who want to walk away and those who want to finish the job," Romney said.

Responding to the criticism, Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said it was "disappointing to see George W. Bush sending out yet another lemon-sucking surrogate to push his attack campaign. This president should spend more time attacking the problems of the American people and less time attacking John Kerry."

[GunnyL]

But, Saddam's shotgun was unloaded, rusted out and the firing mechanism removed. And they knew that long before the war.

Oh? WHO knew? Certainly not most of the World who believed he possessed and would use WMDs. Certainly not most of the American people who believed he possessed and would use WMDs. Certainly not Bush, who based on information he was provided, believed Saddam possessed and would use WMDs. And Saddam himself PROVED he woulduse WMDs by using them.

The Bush people predicted it would be a cakewalk before the war because of the intelligence they had at that time. No Navy, no Air Force.. wow!

It was a cakewalk because Saddam's ground forces were far inferior to ours, as is eveybody else's. With Desert Storm in 91 as a set precedent, what's so hard to predict? What'd you expect Bush to say anyway? That we'd lose? Or we suck? WHAT?

The CIA has been ripped and blamed for the war... and gw is loving that, of course. But, that does not let him off the hook. He was told by his Ambassador to Iraq.. whose wife.. Valerie Plame was a CIA operative, there was no nuclear threat. What did his people do? Outted her.

The CIA is only one intelligence agency that got ripped. And as far as WMDs go, nuvlear weapons are not the only thing that comprises the catchy little phrase "WMDs." Boilogical and chemical weapons are also considered WMDs.

Our own Air Force told gw.. the drones were not likely, could not happen. In fact.. the truth is.... Bush had much contradicting evidence....... and not enough convincing evidence for war.

In YOUR opinion. You aren't President.

Yet, he and his people convinced the world and Congress by their rhetoric, their positions of trust and authority that what they were saying was valid. They so inflamed with fear the people of the US with the constant references to 9/11... too many and that includes Congress got suckered in.

Oh bullshit. Pull your head out of the sand. Saddam was a problem from the second he invaded Kuwait until he was deposed. Many valid reasons were given to justify the invasion, not just the one that turned out to be false that you've built your entire case on.

Bush cannot possibly claim to the people of the US that the world is now a safer place.

And you can't claim the US is a less safer place. If he were to close out borders and knock down some civil liberties that would be REQUIRED to ensure the safety of the US you libs would rupture your guts you'd be screaming so loud. You want to have your cake and eat it too. It ain't going to happen.

[Atenhotep]

Gunny my man ....

I have to quibble with you concerning your post.

Oh? WHO knew? Certainly not most of the World who believed he possessed and would use WMDs.

See, the way I remember it ... MOST of the world did not believe he had WMD at the point of the Invasion. It was Bush that kept saying Saddam did. Saddam requested a televised discussion with Bush ... but Bush declined. If we're talkning about the world as your measuring stick gunny, MOST of the world believes Bush is one of the greatest threats to world security. So I don't think you want to talk about what "MOST" of the world thinks.

Certainly not most of the American people who believed he possessed and would use WMDs.

All I have to say about that is "American Idol" continues to have a viewing audience while William Hung releases videos ... and people buy them.

The American people will believe whatever they're told to believe.

Certainly not Bush, who based on information he was provided, believed Saddam possessed and would use WMDs.

As the Invasion of Iraq was planned before 9-11 I'm still finding it difficult for people to try and blame the CIA. But then of course Tenant resigned for the purpose of some quality time with his family, right?

And Saddam himself PROVED he would use WMDs by using them.

And so has the USA. And the USA once urged him to use WMD against Iranian civilians. We absolutely cannot vilify and isolate those horrific actions without taking responsibility as well .. but then that would destroy the entire point you're trying to present.

It was a cakewalk because Saddam's ground forces were far inferior to ours

It was a cakewalk because of the sanctions against Iraq for the past decade.

This was planned long ago.

This is Imperialism.

This is our destruction.

nuvlear weapons are not the only thing that comprises the catchy little phrase "WMDs." Boilogical and chemical weapons are also considered WMDs.


And should we ever discover any ... then I'll be willing to imagine your point is relevant.

Oh!!! But what ever became of that sarin shell?

:eyes

In YOUR opinion. You aren't President.

Irony: See Gunny's post.

Saddam was a problem from the second he invaded Kuwait until he was deposed

With the US giving a wink and a nod. As I stated earlier, this was all planned a long time ago.


Ok ... this might be the one that really gets me ...


And you can't claim the US is a less safer place.

But the data showing that terrorism has increased as a result of Bush's Invasion sure does.


If he were to close out borders and knock down some civil liberties that would be REQUIRED to ensure the safety of the US you libs would rupture your guts you'd be screaming so loud.

So you no longer support the Bill of Rights?


You want to have your cake and eat it too. It ain't going to happen.

I don't eat cake but I would be pretty happy to have had a President that didn't go starting more wars until we at least tried to finish the one we already had.

[thaanatos]

Evil trumps Christian hater so ... I'm ok with whatever you want to call me sweet pea.

shucks, guess that means an evil Christian hater is SOL, don't it.....

[thaanatos]

See, the way I remember it ... MOST of the world did not believe he had WMD at the point of the Invasion.
then you aren't 'remembering' it at all.....everyone agreed he had the weapons, the issue was what is the best way to 'find' them.....were we going to give the inspectors more time while Saddaam led the world around by the nose.....the nose, it turned out, the world had buried in the feeding trough of Oil for Food

[thaanatos]

As the Invasion of Iraq was planned before 9-11....
this is something you rely on heavily to support your beliefs.....however, I have met no rational people who agree with you.....

[Atenhotep]

everyone agreed he had the weapons

No thaanatos. FOX tells you "everyone" agreed he had WMDs but in the REAL world that was never the case.

What follows is the meat and potatoes of my interview with Ritter three years before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and one year after Ritter published a more detailed analysis in his book "Endgame."

SG: Can you tell me about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the Middle East region, in particular, and the world in general?

Ritter: "Let's talk about the weapons. In 1991, did Iraq have a viable (WMD) capability? You're darn right they did. They had a massive chemical weapons program. They had a giant biological weapons program. They had long-range ballistic missiles and they had a nuclear weapons program that was about six months away from having a viable weapon."

"Now after seven years of work by UNSCOM inspectors, there was no more (WMD) program. It had been eliminated. ... When I say eliminated I'm talking about facilities destroyed..."

"The weapons stock had been, by and large, accounted for -- removed, destroyed, or rendered harmless. Means of production had been eliminated, in terms of the factories that can produce this. ... There were some areas that we didn't have full accounting for... (U.N. resolution) 687 required that Iraq be disarmed 100 percent. It's what they call 'quantitative disarmament.' Iraq will not be found in compliance until it has been disarmed to a 100 percent level."

"That's the standard set forth by the Security Council and as implementors of the Security Council resolution, the weapons inspectors had no latitude to seek to do anything less than that -- 80 percent was not acceptable; 90 percent was not acceptable; only 100 percent was acceptable."

"And this was the Achilles tendon, so to speak, of UNSCOM. Because by the time 1997 came around, Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed. On any meaningful benchmark -- in terms of defining Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability; in terms of assessing whether or not Iraq posed a threat, not only to its immediate neighbors, but the region and the world as a whole -- Iraq had been eliminated as such a threat...."

"What was Iraq hiding? Documentation, primarily. Documents that would enable them to reconstitute -- at a future date -- weapons of mass destruction capability. ... But all of this is useless... unless Iraq has access to the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars required to rebuild the industrial infrastructure (necessary) to build these weapons."

"They didn't have it in 1998. They don't have it today. This paranoia about what Iraq is doing now that there aren't weapons inspectors reflects a lack of understanding of the reality in Iraq."

"The economic sanctions have devastated this nation. The economic sanctions, combined with the effects of the Gulf War, have assured that Iraq operate as a Third World nation in terms of industrial output and capacity..."

[To say that Iraq is a threat is] "ridiculous. Iraq has no meaningful weapons of mass destruction program today."

"Now, having said that, I firmly believe we have to get weapons inspection back in for the purpose of monitoring... especially if we lift economic sanctions. And I believe that there should be immediate lifting of economic sanctions in return for the resumption of meaningful arms inspections. Iraq would go for that."

"What Iraq is not going for is this so-called suspension of sanctions where the Iraqi economy is still controlled by the Security Council and held hostage to the whim of the United States, which has shown itself irresponsible in terms of formulating Iraq policy over the past decade. The United States still has a policy of overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein -- in total disregard for international law and the provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions."

"I, for one, believe that a.) Iraq represents a threat to no one, and b.) Iraq will not represent a threat to anyone if we can get weapons inspectors back in. Iraq will accept these inspectors if we agree to the immediate lifting of economic sanctions. The Security Council should re-evaluate Iraq's disarmament obligation from a qualitative standpoint and not quantitative standpoint."

Maybe now those who chose to ignore the intelligence that was out there leading up to the war can recover the lost art of questioning authority and demanding accountability.


http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16411

Your dictator in chief , soon to be sent packing and YOU KNOW IT ... fucked the people of this country and threw gas on an existing fire.

A war on terror has never been among his priorities. And I'll tell you, while America has to deal with the threat of religious nut cases abroad the last thing we need is a religious nut job in the White House.

You religious nuts should all go to the artic where you can beat each other senseless and leave the rest of us alone.

[thaanatos]

so, Aten, are you going to make us post yet again to this board the quotes of all the people who acknowledged that Saddaam had WMD....folks like Clinton, and Daschle and Kerry and Blix and Chiraq...

you are deliberately lying when you say 'everyone' knew there were no weapons before the war started....

[thaanatos]

A war on terror has never been among his priorities. And I'll tell you, while America has to deal with the threat of religious nut cases abroad the last thing we need is a religious nut job in the White House.

You religious nuts should all go to the artic where you can beat each other senseless and leave the rest of us alone.

and here we have the crux of the problem.....this has never been about Iraq for you and for must of the brainless librulls in this country......if it hadn't been Iraq it would have been another issue.....

what has set you off is that Bush is, in your minds, a conservative Christian, and like all true Bigots, you cannot rest until you have put an end to that horror....you are acting like the KKK would if we had a black president....bring him down at all costs.....

it's sad, Aten.....really sad.....

[Atenhotep]

No thaanatos ... I don't care at all if a Christian is in the White House.

What I DO care about is the religious nut we have in there using words like "Crusade" and claiming God talks to him and told him to be President.

That's some fucked up shit.

Really, all of you religious nuts should go somewhere and hash it all out.

Meanwhile leave the rest of us alone.

......if it hadn't been Iraq it would have been another issue....

Iraq is not "just another issue" and if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq and remained focused on the War on Terrorism he'd be getting a second term

Now your mess is being handed to a Democrat that ain't no miracle worker so whatever the future is it ain't going to be pretty. Thank you Mr. Bush.

[thaanatos]

you demonstrate your bigotry even in your denial

[ninjalooter1701]

As the Invasion of Iraq was planned before 9-11....
this is something you rely on heavily to support your beliefs.....however, I have met no rational people who agree with you.....
You haven't met Paul O'Neill, that's not surprising. I don't think he meets with toilet scrubbers such as yourself.

[thaanatos]

this new ignore button is fantastic!

[ninjalooter1701]

Show us where it is, and then we'll see who is ignored by most!

[GunnyL]

MOST of the world did not believe he had WMD at the point of the Invasion. It was Bush that kept saying Saddam did.

Aten ....

I disagree. Those with political differences with the US, or financial dealings with Saddam claimed Saddam was not a threat. No one started on the "no WMDs" bandwagon until a massive cache was not produced within the time limit the left placed on Bush to produce them.

All I have to say about that is "American Idol" continues to have a viewing audience while William Hung releases videos ... and people buy them.

The American people will believe whatever they're told to believe.

Can't argue with THAT.

As the Invasion of Iraq was planned before 9-11 I'm still finding it difficult for people to try and blame the CIA. But then of course Tenant resigned for the purpose of some quality time with his family, right?

The invasion was actually planned during the Gulf War in 91. It was constantly revised and/or updated all during Clinton's presidency. If Bush looked at the then-current plan prior to invading Iraq, it was just SOP.

And so has the USA. And the USA once urged him to use WMD against Iranian civilians.

The USA did not urge Saddam to use WMDs on Iranian civilians. When our enemy was his enemy, the CIA instructed Saddam's chemists on how to better-purify their mustard gas.

At the time, the US felt justified in helping Saddam against Iran. Yes, we are responsible for that. Had I my way, we'd have gone to war with Iran ourselves and forget the middleman.

It was a cakewalk because of the sanctions against Iraq for the past decade.

This was planned long ago.

This is Imperialism.

This is our destruction.

It was a cakewalk this time just as it was a cakewalk in 91 when Saddam was at his best. His army isn't in the same league as ours. It's only imperialism IF we stay, and IF we exploit Iraq and the Iraqi people. So far, best I can tell, it's just costing us bodies and money. Some exploitation.

And should we ever discover any ... then I'll be willing to imagine your point is relevant.

Oh!!! But what ever became of that sarin shell?

I doubt we ever will, and it won't matter if we do. The left will just accuse Bush of planting them. That is SOP for the left. Any WMDs he had are either buried under the fifth sand dune on the left waiting to be stumbled over, or they are dispersed throught the Middle East.

Let's try to put at least some of the blame where it belongs. If Saddam had nothing to hide, then he had no reason to pretend he was hiding anything. His stupidity is as much to blame as anything else for a situation that should have been resolved a decade ago.

And I don't think you hear anyone arguing that one, leftover shell containing sarin was a big find. At the same time, I doubt Saddam produced ONE artillery round filled with sarin.

With the US giving a wink and a nod. As I stated earlier, this was all planned a long time ago.

This a new conspiracy theory on me. So you are saying we encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait, so we could kick his ass? That's right up there with Bush being behind 9/11.

You are definitely right ..... Americans WILL believe anything. :lol

But the data showing that terrorism has increased as a result of Bush's Invasion sure does.

The statement was Bush couldn't claim the US was a safer place. How many terrorist attacks have been made in the US since 9/11? Would you rather fight them on their ground or ours?

So you no longer support the Bill of Rights?

Putting words in my mouth? I did not say that. I pointed out the fact that those who cry the loudest that we aren't being protected are the same ones who cry if you make even law that somehow is perceived to infringe upon their unalienable rights.

To ensure terrorist attacks are kept at the very minimum, we would have to close our borders and give up a few liberties.

I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue. Which is more important? The protection of a Nation of people, or individual liberty? My statement however was just the choice, not an endorsement of one or the other.

I don't eat cake but I would be pretty happy to have had a President that didn't go starting more wars until we at least tried to finish the one we already had.

You'll get no argument with me on that. And it's getting better. Iran's acting and talking all bad because they know we're over-extended. We'll see where that goes, I'm sure.

[Atenhotep]

As the Invasion of Iraq was planned before 9-11....
this is something you rely on heavily to support your beliefs.....however, I have met no rational people who agree with you.....


U R dum.

Why are you so completely out of touch with reality .. current events ... why thaanatos?

Seriously, were your parents hippies that had you in a drugged out stupor?

PNAC.

Even the administration has admitted Iraq was planned from the start - so yes, that would qualify your "no reasonable people" statement.

Jeesh. FOX rots your brain. Lay off that stuff for a while.

[Atenhotep]

No one started on the "no WMDs" bandwagon until a massive cache was not produced within the time limit the left placed on Bush to produce them.- Gunny

I'm a millionaire. The proof? Well, I have none so there you have it! I'm a millionaire.

Gunny, the chemicals once mixed have a limited shelf life. That means there has to have been laboratories.

The administration CLAIMED they knew exactly where they were.

The USA did not urge Saddam to use WMDs on Iranian civilians. When our enemy was his enemy, the CIA instructed Saddam's chemists on how to better-purify their mustard gas.

Maybe I'm just not understanding something here buuuuttt ... giving a lighter to an arsonist and teaching him how to set fires is ... well ... encouraging him ...

If you aid in evil you have done evil.

As Bush said (paraphrased), "Any country that supports and aids terrorists ..."

That is SOP for the left

It is SOP for anyone that doesn't trust their government.

The right claims it wants smaller government when the truth is they just want completer control of the government and so long as they're in control size and deficit spending is of no concern.

This a new conspiracy theory on me. So you are saying we encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait

Are you aware of what our government told Saddam in regard to our position on Kuwait prior to his invasion?

Yes, we gave a wink and a nod.

You trust your government soooo much so why do you support the Second Amendment at all Gunny? It sounds like the thing is completely obsolete from your POV.

How many terrorist attacks have been made in the US since 9/11?

OK, here's the thing .. and you're not getting around it. I am SOOOOOO tired of hearing that little bit of foolishness.

IF Bush is responsible for no terrorist attacks since 9-11 then he is also responsible for 9-11.

The big one is coming Gunny. We got very very lucky on 9-11. The next one will not be so lucky.

Would you rather fight them on their ground or ours?

I would rather not create more of them is what I would rather.

we would have to close our borders and give up a few liberties.

Surely you saw this coming:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin

We have something called The Bill of Rights. Check it out.

Let me explain how this whole thing works:

George H W Bush initiated the so-called assualt Weapon Ban. Clinton and Shrub have expanded on it.

It will continue along that route until the second Amendment is gone from the books.

THAT Gunny is how it works.

[GunnyL]

I'm a millionare. The proof? Well, I have none so there you have it! I'm a millionare.

Hey, I believe you. Can I borrow some money? :)

Gunny, the chemicals once mixed have a limited shelf life. That means there has to have been labratories.

The administration CLAIMED they knew exactly where they were.

Any suspected or known laboratories were bombed out during the invasion, if not before.

Maybe I'm just not understanding something here buuuuttt ... giving a lighter to an arsonist and teaching him how to set fires is ... well ... encouraging him ...

As I said, his enemy was OUR enemy. I don't condone the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. I don't condone the CIA training the Iraqis to refine their gas, whether or not Carter knew about it.

The right claims it wants smaller government when the truth is they just want completer control of the government and so long as they're in control size and defeicit spending is of no concern.

COnservatives believing in smaller government wasn't invented by the current administration, and I am one of those who actually do believe in less government at the Federal level.

Are you aware of what our government told Saddam in regard to our position on Kuwait prior to his invasion?

Yes, we gave a wink and a nod.

Well, I'm STILL waiting to hear this new to me accusation from the left. I doubt seriously we gave Saddam the okay to invade Kuwait, no matter how much what was actually said is misconstrued.

You trust your government soooo much so why do you support the Second Amendment at all Gunny? It sounds like the thing is completely obsolete from your POV.

Not suspecting them of duplicity at every turn does not mean I trust shit. And I can say the same for you where anti-Bush propaganda is concerned. If it's about Bush and it's bad, you buy it lock, stock and barrell.

IF Bush is responsible for no terrorist attacks since 9-11 then he is also responsible for 9-11.

I don't see the correlation. The planning for 9/11 began long before Bush.

The big one is coming Gunny. We got very very lucky on 9-11. The next one will not be so lucky.

It won't be "the big one." It will have to outdo 9/11, or it will be considered anticlimactic. If it happens it happens. I could almost feel sorry for whoever is responsible because his known whereabouts will look like a moon crater when we're done REGARDLESS who is President.

I would rather not create more of them is what I would rather.

I would agree with that if it were feasible. We're beyond that. The Wahhabis are going to come after us. The only way to stop that is to stop them first, by whatever means necessary.

Surely you saw this coming:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin

Actually, I expected it in your last post. ;)

We have something called The Bill of Rights. Check it out.

I'm well-aware of the Bill of Rights and what it says. So, what you are saying is, in your opinion, individual liberty is more important than National security.

Sometime you're going to explain to me just WHAT individual liberties you have. I was a teenager in the 70s, and we were positively FREE compared to now.

However, as I stated before, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. All I know is we can't have it both ways. It's tactically impossible. Having said that, I would assume I won't hear you or anyone else who refuses to relinquish any liberties and stands on the Bill of Rights blaming Bush for a a terrorist attack?

Didn't think so. :/

Let me explain how this whole thing works:

George H W Bush initiated the so-called Assualt Weapon Ban. Clinton and Shrub have expanded on it.

It will continue along that route until the second Amendment is gone from the books.

THAT Gunny is how it works.

I seriously doubt it. If it ever happens, they can come look for mine. They were "stolen."

[Atenhotep]

Gunny, I'm sorry but your arguments are getting pretty strained.

Any suspected or known laboratories were bombed out during the invasion, if not before.

Which is why we’ve found the widely reported ruins I guess?

I don't condone the CIA training the Iraqis to refine their gas, whether or not Carter knew about it.

And Carter has what to do with ...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

COnservatives believing in smaller government wasn't invented by the current administration, and I am one of those who actually do believe in less government at the Federal level.

I sure as hell know it wasn't invented by this sorry excuse for an administration. The government has grown under their watch more than any President since LBJ. These people have spent our next few generations into the poor house to buy your vote.

I can say the same for you where anti-Bush propaganda is concerned. If it's about Bush and it's bad, you buy it lock, stock and barrell.

You're pretty clueless then.

"The price for indifference is to be ruled by evil men" - Plato

Get it?

America hasn't been a democracy for a long time. Democracy only works when the people involve themselves in the process. Part of that process is education.

"Propaganda is to a Democracy what Violence is to a Totalitarian Regime."

Bushites, and I really mean this - have lost all future rights IMO to ever complain about any liberal president.

If you spend four years starting fires you don't get to complain about somebody smoking a cigar.

Period.

I don't see the correlation. The planning for 9/11 began long before Bush.

This is really almost pointless. You have your logic switch jammed in the off position.

Look, I can "plan" something all I want but the opportunity and execution of the planned event is the actual event.

The more terrorism we create the more planning there is to fuck us over. We'll NEVER be able to stop planning.

It's the event we have to stop.

So Bushites claim that Bush gets the credit for no attacks after 9-11?

Bullshit.

You don't think people are planning to hit us?

You think any terrorist is concerned one bit about the "ramifications" of his actions?

Ever been in South Compton? You think those people give one shit about the laws?

It won't be "the big one." It will have to outdo 9/11, or it will be considered anticlimactic

In the early 90s I was reading the CIA assessments that within ten years one major US city was going to be hit with a terrorist nuke.

They had the timing correct, but as I stated we got lucky.

That nuke is coming.

And yeah, it's going to make 9-11 look like a paper cut.

A REAL war on terror would have involved gathering up loose nukes, giving the terrorists fewer opportunities to kick our ass (as in Iraq) and to have immediately gathered up those responsible for 9-11. Now we're fucked and I blame every last one of you Bush Supporters.

I would agree with that if it were feasible. We're beyond that. The Wahhabis are going to come after us.

That's a defeated victimization attitude. Now let's examine ...

The only way to stop that is to stop them first, by whatever means necessary.

The war on Terror is like a war on dust. The more you stir it up the more you create.

Bush Policies are nothing more than a recruiting tool for many more generations of Anti-American killers.

It's tactically impossible. Having said that, I would assume I won't hear you or anyone else who refuses to relinquish any liberties and stands on the Bill of Rights blaming Bush for a a terrorist attack?

Didn't think so

I'll blame any religiouis nut job slinging words like Crusade around and doesn't recognize that the US is part of a world community.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Of all the nations on earth should "The Great Melting Pot" at least have a clue?

I seriously doubt it. If it ever happens, they can come look for mine. They were "stolen."

I wasn't making a point about guns, I was trying to get you to understand how the Bill of Rights is being taken from us.

The "terrorists have won" because of the fear and ignorance spread by this administration.

I've always known our government was crooked and hypocritical but my good faith in people allowed me to think that people just didn't have the time to really understand and therefore lived in an illusion.

Fine, but it has been so obvious under this administration I can't make excuses for people any more.

The best intersts of America and its people just so happen to be the best interests of the world.

They are the same but because we don't acknowledge that our cities and our people are going to become melted slag until there is a change.


Look, not to be rude but you're just pulling excuses out of thin air.

When did you install the on & off switch to your logic?

[ninjalooter1701]

About the Chemical Labs:Any suspected or known laboratories were bombed out during the invasion, if not before.
Residue still remains and is detectable...

[lily]

Oh? WHO knew? Certainly not most of the World who believed he possessed and would use WMDs. Certainly not most of the American people who believed he possessed and would use WMDs. Certainly not Bush, who based on information he was provided, believed Saddam possessed and would use WMDs. And Saddam himself PROVED he woulduse WMDs by using them.

You still won't give up the ghost will you gunny? Even after how many $$$$ have been spent to PROVE Bush lied? Is it because Bush had you fooled? Well, if it makes you feel any better, I fell for it too, but it just isn't true.

[lily]

then you aren't 'remembering' it at all.....everyone agreed he had the weapons, the issue was what is the best way to 'find' them.....were we going to give the inspectors more time while Saddaam led the world around by the nose.....the nose, it turned out, the world had buried in the feeding trough of Oil for Food

It was Bush who pulled out the inspectors. After every single report that they sent to him said there were no WMD. I get tired of asking this question, but I will one more time. We had the maps. We had the intelligence. Powell himself held up a map with X marks the spot. Why didn't we give them to the inspectors? Seems it would have saved a lot of lives.

[lily]

It was a cakewalk because Saddam's ground forces were far inferior to ours, as is eveybody else's. With Desert Storm in 91 as a set precedent, what's so hard to predict? What'd you expect Bush to say anyway? That we'd lose? Or we suck? WHAT?

One question............why isn't it a cakewalk now that Mission Accomplised flew over an air craft carrier?

[lily]

And you can't claim the US is a less safer place. If he were to close out borders and knock down some civil liberties that would be REQUIRED to ensure the safety of the US you libs would rupture your guts you'd be screaming so loud. You want to have your cake and eat it too. It ain't going to happen.

I thin I can claim that the US is a less safer place..........postponing the elections, because of terrorist threats????????????????

[Atenhotep]

And I love this one too the more I thought about it ...

The planning for 9/11 began long before Bush.

So all the attacks that occur over the next decade due to Bush's policies ... I get to "Bitch Slap" all of the Bushites claiming we are better off because of these stupid policies?

[GunnyL]

Gunny, I'm sorry but your arguments are getting pretty strained.

Not really. Just depends on your point of view. I could say the same for yours.

Which is why we’ve found the widely reported ruins I guess?

Um .... yeah? They're there. It's just nobody's made issue of it. The left only makes issue of the ones the administration thought existed.

And Carter has what to do with ...

My bad. I was thinking of something else. I'll try to never err in your presence again. :lol

sure as hell know it wasn't invented by this sorry excuse for an administration. The government has grown under their watch more than any President since LBJ. These people have spent our next few generations into the poor house to buy your vote.

I don't consider this administration any sorrier than the one before it. As far as spending, there must be some fine line they keep missing. Clinton emptied my pocket so he could meet an imaginary zero in the sky that really only zeroed out one portion of the budget.

You're pretty clueless then.

Cheap shot. You know better than that. I'm just not buying what you or the Dems are selling. Nothing personal ... don't make it so.

Get it?

America hasn't been a democracy for a long time. Democracy only works when the people involve themselves in the process. Part of that process is education.

Sorry, but blaming that on the current administration is ummm........ a partisan point of view.

This is really almost pointless. You have your logic switch jammed in the off position.

Look, I can "plan" something all I want but the opportunity and execution of the planned event is the actual event.

The more terrorism we create the more planning there is to fuck us over. We'll NEVER be able to stop planning.

It's the event we have to stop.

I agree. Pointless. The terrorist carried out their plan when they were ready, regardless who was President. Stop blaming Bush an dI'll quit pointing out the fact it was not his, nor any other presidents fault. To the Wahhabis, ou mere existence is what matters.

Gotta go. I'll finish later.

[Atenhotep]

Um .... yeah? They're there. It's just nobody's made issue of it. The left only makes issue of the ones the administration thought existed.

You're going to need to supply some facts to back that up.

As far as spending, there must be some fine line they keep missing. Clinton emptied my pocket so he could meet an imaginary zero in the sky that really only zeroed out one portion of the budget.

Our government waste spending is not in question. However, be aware that the spending of the Clinton administration was built on the ideology of creating strength for our future generations.

You might feel you are better off but Bush is buying your votes at the very high price of leaving your children with the tab ... and the tab is much higher than the one Clinton was trying to pay down FROM THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.

Sorry, but blaming that on the current administration is ummm........ a partisan point of view.

I don't think you see the full picture. Did we have discussions during the Clinton Administration?

The only partisanship I'm aware of is coming from Bush supporters that watch the country go to hell and call be partisan for not particulary enjoying the spectacle of it all.

I thought after eight years of hounding Clinton the GOP wanted what I wanted, a better America.

What happened to the "Contract with America?"

All of that was talk for the purpose of attacking Clinton and now we see thery didn't mean one damn word of it.

Attacking Max Cleland.

Using 9-11 as a manipulative fear tool.

Claiming that Bush is doing a great job on terror while reminding me that 9-11 was planned before Bush WHILE we create more terrorists.

WE ARE GOING TO BE NUKED. Every day Bush makes it easier for that to happen by creating MORE anti-American terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

PATHETIC.

I'll never EVER vote Republican again nor be fooled into thinking the GOP has America's best interests at heart.

[GunnyL]

Aten ...

You assume a lot. Nobody has bought my vote. I belong to neither of the "good old boy" systems, and don't intend to. I like to think I vote for the best candidate, but in reality, I've voted the last 4 elections for the person I felt was the lesser of the two evils.

You judge me in absolutes. Because I do no villify Bush, and choose to give him the benefit of the doubt, you tag me a "right winger", or "Bushy" or whatever you call anyone farther to the right than you.

Yes, I a lot my views are conservative, but not by much. It is with some irony that you label me a right winger here, but on the conservative board where I post many of them think I'm a liberal.

Wonder why I just can't be me? Everybody's got have a label for everyone-and-thing.

I have not condoned everything Bush has done. As a matter of fact, I dislike several things he has done. I dislike even more things about Kerry. Simple as that. You seem to think anything is better than Bush, and I don't.

And that's fine. But pleae refrain from labelling me something I am not. I am for whatever I believe is right, using common sense, logic, and any knowledge I happen to possess on a given subject. I don't let which party is for what limit my beliefs.

[Atenhotep]

Gunny, I find everything in your post most agreeable.

politics is a philosophy. I am , in fact, trying to explain this concept to another on a different board.

Bush represents a philosophy. I can never prove a philosophy "wrong" but I can challenge the individual that administers that philosophy.

I firmly believe that MOST people don't even know what they believe, in the sense that given a context that applies to themselves and not others they would not find their "philosophy" at all acceptable.

"Collateral Damage" is perfectly fine so long is it's "Them" and not "Us."

[GunnyL]

I firmly believe that MOST people don't even know what they believe, in the sense that given a context that applies to themselves and not others they would not find their "philosophy" at all acceptable.

"Collateral Damage" is perfectly fine so long is it's "Them" and not "Us."

A situation that has not gone unnoticed by me. People would rather be wrong than admit to themselves that they are in fact, wrong. There has to be core values at the root. What I see are many believing in something because it's chic, or "it was good enough for my Daddy, Grandaddy, etc ...." which is absolutely ridiculous. To many people don't think for themselves.

In the context of politics, I can respect someone who believes completely opposite what I do, as long as it is a belief. I have little respect fot those that just spout mindless rhetoric because the party of their flavor says so when that person has given little to no thought of the issue(s) at hand.

I personally would like to see some moderation. IMO, moderates, be they left or right, are the majority of people, and their voice is not heard because face it, moderation and compromise are boring. Polarization sells copy.

Something needs to happen to galvanize a silent majority to take back the car keys from the juveniles at the far ends of the political spectrum, and it needs to happen before we implode.

[ninjalooter1701]

I firmly believe that MOST people don't even know what they believe, in the sense that given a context that applies to themselves and not others they would not find their "philosophy" at all acceptable.

"Collateral Damage" is perfectly fine so long is it's "Them" and not "Us."

A situation that has not gone unnoticed by me. People would rather be wrong than admit to themselves that they are in fact, wrong. There has to be core values at the root. What I see are many believing in something because it's chic, or "it was good enough for my Daddy, Grandaddy, etc ...." which is absolutely ridiculous. To many people don't think for themselves.

In the context of politics, I can respect someone who believes completely opposite what I do, as long as it is a belief. I have little respect fot those that just spout mindless rhetoric because the party of their flavor says so when that person has given little to no thought of the issue(s) at hand.

I personally would like to see some moderation. IMO, moderates, be they left or right, are the majority of people, and their voice is not heard because face it, moderation and compromise are boring. Polarization sells copy.

Something needs to happen to galvanize a silent majority to take back the car keys from the juveniles at the far ends of the political spectrum, and it needs to happen before we implode.
Bingo, exactly what's polarizing this country...