Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   so Bush isn't a liar?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 16 of 62 (143629)
09-21-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wounded King
09-21-2004 11:03 AM


At least you don't have neo-nazi groups making inroads into public office. Last weekend in two German states far right parties made it into the state parliaments. In one case (Saxony) they reached 9.2% of the vote. At the same time in several recent elections, far left parties like the PDS (the successor to the communist east German ruling dictatorship) are drawing voting totals in the mid 20% range and in some cases polling above the SPD which is in control of the federal government. They even did fairly well in one state although the candidate running was a member of the STASI.
The next federal election is going to be really strange as opposed to that of the UK where it appears to be a forgone conclusion that Blair will win if he stands for election. Both the center left and center right parties which normally trade places in government, are bleeding votes like crazy. The far right and far left are picking up votes as is the Green party. Who knows what kind of ruling goverment with what kind of chancellor is going to emerge from this mess. About the only sure thing is that Germany will continue to stagnate economically since everyone thinks reform is a great idea as long as they themselves don't have to give up anything at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 09-21-2004 11:03 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 62 (143630)
09-21-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by paisano
09-21-2004 9:38 AM


I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...but then, so did Kerry/Edwards, who both voted to authorize use of force against Iraq.
I'm also in favor of cops having guns, but not in favor of them opening fire on every crook they see.
There's a substantial difference between approval of the option to use force and approval of every use of force. The authorization to use force accomplished the goal - Saddam came into compliance with the UN demands.
So why was the war necessary when the threat of war had succeeded?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 09-21-2004 9:38 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 09-22-2004 10:01 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 62 (143637)
09-21-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
09-21-2004 11:03 AM


Re: Power Corrupts
quote:
Dubya comes from one of Americas most powerful families. They
Oh, its much more incestuous than that:
Candidates have same Essex ancestor
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday September 21, 2004
The Guardian
It is perhaps not surprising that the battle between George Bush and John Kerry has turned so nasty - it is, after all, a family affair. Both men are descendants of the same Essex man.
Their common ancestor was a member of the minor Essex gentry called Edmund Reade who was born and died in Wickford without ever seeing the New World his offspring would fight over 400 years later.
However, Reade's daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret, both sailed to New England with their mother, probably in the 1630s. Both had married into powerful families, Winthrop and Lake, who ultimately begot the two presidential candidates.
The common heritage makes the president and Senator Kerry ninth cousins, twice removed, according to Gary Boyd Roberts, a Massachusetts genealogist who has researched their family backgrounds.
"They were part of the upper classes in the 1560s and they are still part of the upper classes," Mr Roberts said, but pointed out that Mr Kerry has more "cosmopolitan" elements in his family tree.
His father's side of the family were Jews from the Austro-Hungarian empire who converted to Catholicism and changed their name from Khn to Kerry before emigrating to America in 1904.
Mr Bush, the son of a former president and grandson of a senator, can trace his lineage to the Mayflower immigrants, and to some of the oldest families in the country. The only exotic element is a "sliver of Swiss and German on his mother's side", Mr Roberts said.
The Essex connection is the closest bloodline linking the candidates, but they have seven other common ancestors
Candidates have same Essex ancestor | World news | The Guardian
300 years of democracy and still ruled by English blue-bloods.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-21-2004 10:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 09-21-2004 11:03 AM Phat has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 62 (143712)
09-21-2004 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by paisano
09-21-2004 9:38 AM


I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...
He said he wouldn't act hastily. He said he would get UN support. He said he would exhaust all other means.
Then, while the UN still had inspectors working inside Iraq he slapped on an arbitrary date that Saddam had to "prove" something, that physically there was no way he could prove if he was innocent... as it turns out was the case.
Thus he lied about all three above, undercutting a working "other means"
As he began to defy the UN and threatened breaking International Law, he said that he would put the measure (of using force) before the security council. Then when it was clear it couldn't pass that (and no not just because of a French veto) he broke his word on that as well.
As it became clear Bush was mounting an invasion no matter what, members of Congress demanded a budget for this so they could debate its merits. He promised Congress that he would deliver the budget before an invasion began. He did not deliver it till after.
Kerry/Edwards, who both voted to authorize use of force against Iraq.
They gave the president the ability to wage war, not the green light to do so and in any manner. Bush did lie about the conditions under which he'd use that authority... Man it's just like the lame plot of the latest Star Wars series.
If you are against the war from beginning to end, you should vote for Nader.
I was against the war, I will not be voting for Nader. This is consistent.
Perhaps those that were for the war from beginning to end, including afterward where 20/20 hindsight shows that the many people against the war had correctly assessed the outcome beforehand... and still think Bush never lied... should vote for Bush.
I mean I really can't think of anything dumber than voting for Bush.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 09-21-2004 9:38 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ThingsChange, posted 09-21-2004 7:17 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 7:25 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 24 by paisano, posted 09-21-2004 8:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5925 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 20 of 62 (143753)
09-21-2004 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
09-21-2004 4:50 PM


dumb and dumber
holmes writes:
I mean I really can't think of anything dumber than voting for Bush.
I can think of something dumber: voting for Kerry.
BTW, Dan Rather lied !!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2004 4:50 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 7:38 PM ThingsChange has replied
 Message 32 by nator, posted 09-22-2004 10:15 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 62 (143758)
09-21-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
09-21-2004 4:50 PM


quote:
I mean I really can't think of anything dumber than voting for Bush.
I will take the high road. Not voting is dumber than voting for Bush. The voter turnout here in the states really stuns me sometimes. Only a third of our population votes yet we have put it on ouselves to spread democracy throughout the globe. There some irony in there somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2004 4:50 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 22 of 62 (143760)
09-21-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ThingsChange
09-21-2004 7:17 PM


Re: dumb and dumber
Oh really? Please explain how Dan Rather "[made] an untrue statement with intent to deceive." (Merriam-Webster), seing how NBC was lied to about the source of the memo. I mean, I can document Bush fitting that statement to a T on several occasions, but please document the one that you're claiming.
Oh, and again, I'll reiterate: the case was already well made without these memos, and both Killian's secretary and his commander have stated that he held these sentiments of Bush. We can get into that if you would like.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ThingsChange, posted 09-21-2004 7:17 PM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ThingsChange, posted 09-22-2004 12:19 AM Rei has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 62 (143763)
09-21-2004 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
09-20-2004 5:21 PM


This whole thing tends to make me think of Kerry being corrupted. Please prove me wrong.
all politicians are corrupt.
deal with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 09-20-2004 5:21 PM Trump won has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 24 of 62 (143775)
09-21-2004 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
09-21-2004 4:50 PM


They gave the president the ability to wage war, not the green light to do so and in any manner. Bush did lie about the conditions under which he'd use that authority... Man it's just like the lame plot of the latest Star Wars series.
Well, you might find this link interesting reading.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&conten...
It's to the Democratic Leadership Council site, explaining the rationale for the "yes" vote authorizing force. Both Kerry and Edwards were and are members of the Democratic Leadership Council.
IMO, given the fact that as Senators, Kerry and Edwards had access to the same intelligence assessments as Bush, the "Bush lied" option lacks very much credibility. Let's examine the options:
1) Bush, Kerry ,and Edwards agreed at the time, based on what was known then, ...and I quote from the above site...that
"...Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious and continuing threat to world and Middle Eastern peace, and to U.S. national security interests..."
"...His efforts to develop and deploy chemical, biological and nuclear weapons pose an especially grave and growing threat..."
and therefore that
"...If the U.N. fails to take action to enforce its own resolutions... the United States should still act, with as many allies as possible, to disarm Iraq..."
Now, the full text at the link does contain other conditions, and
it is a legitimate debate as to whether they had been satisfied at the time the decision to attack was made. However, if Kerry/Edwards thinking in October 2002 is reflected above, the "Bush lied" option is not credible.
If Kerry/Edwards relied solely on Bush's word in crafting their vote, and did not examine the information they were privy to, they are either stupid, irresponsible, or both, having been fooled by the allegedly "dumb Texan" who proved, it seemed, clever enough to bamboozle his "betters". In that case, neither should be a Senator, much less President and Vice President.
Another option is that Kerry/Edwards assessment was that the conditions mentioned above did NOT exist, but they voted "yes" anyway. That would hardly be indicative of principled leadership, indeed it would be a craven, knowing capitulation to a President they knew was wrong and didn't agree with, but could not find the courage to oppose. Again, a disqualifying defect for someone seeking to be President.
Another option is they never believed force would actually be used, but the vote was merely symbolic. Again the allegedly "dumb Texan" fooled them. They should have known of his hawkish proclivities.
IMO the most likely option remains that Bush, Kerry, and Edwards acted on incomplete and conflicting information which in hindsight may not have been sufficient to justify the attack...but even this is debatable. Would Saddam still in power really be a better option ?
Perhaps those that were for the war from beginning to end, including afterward where 20/20 hindsight shows that the many people against the war had correctly assessed the outcome beforehand... and still think Bush never lied... should vote for Bush.
I am voting for Bush because I don't think Kerry is going to do any better, and would probably do worse. He has no strategy for Iraq other than to either parrot what Bush is doing, or make vague promises of increased foreign support (from where ? France won't, Germany probably can't according to thir own constitution, Russia is tied up in Chechnya, China lacks the logistical capability and needs to focus on their own region..India maybe ? Pakistan ? UK, Australia, Poland, Italy are already there. Canada? They need to rebuild a military. Anyone else ? I'm listening...)
I mean I really can't think of anything dumber than voting for Bush.
That's an argument from personal incredulity. I can think of many things dumber, including confusing political opinions with intellectual capacity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2004 4:50 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 9:14 PM paisano has not replied
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 12:54 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2004 5:46 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 34 by nator, posted 09-22-2004 10:35 AM paisano has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 25 of 62 (143780)
09-21-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by paisano
09-21-2004 8:48 PM


quote:
IMO, given the fact that as Senators, Kerry and Edwards had access to the same intelligence assessments as Bush, the "Bush lied" option lacks very much credibility.
Not really. Congress gets whatever intelligence breifings the White House provides to them. The White House has access to the full intelligence agencies, and can disclose or hide whatever it wants (within limits, of course). Not liking what it was getting from the CIA, the White House created the Office of Special Plans (OSP), headed by Feith (involved in the recent Israeli spy issue - rember him?), whose job it was to "reanalyze" the inteligence they were getting. His organization relied heavily on questionable defectors like the INC fraudsters.
Members of congress got none of what was going on. All they got was what the White House gave them.
quote:
"...If the U.N. fails to take action to enforce its own resolutions... the United States should still act, with as many allies as possible, to disarm Iraq..."
And what did the UN do?
You got it - they got inspectors into the country, who were having great success (the IAEA was getting close to certifying Iraq as in compliance on nuclear issues; UNMOVIC was further behind, but was destroying al-Samouds (on a technicality, at that), up to the day we invaded - and was working on a plan with the Iraqi government to try and verify their weapons destruction.
In short, the UN acted. End of story, case closed.
quote:
Now, the full text at the link does contain other conditions, and it is a legitimate debate as to whether they had been satisfied at the time the decision to attack was made.
Lets have this legitimate debate, now shall we? You know very well that under the resolution, before Bush could launch a war, he had to prove that:
*All possible diplomatic means have been exhausted and that
*Attacking Iraq is "consistent" with taking actions against "nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks.
Seing as the inspectors were in Iraq to the very day that we went in, and have insisted that dipomatic means were *not* exhausted (and they were the ultimate arbiters on whether Iraq was in violation of resolution 1441), and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...
quote:
quote:
I mean I really can't think of anything dumber than voting for Bush.
That's an argument from personal incredulity. I can think of many things dumber, including confusing political opinions with intellectual capacity.
You are justified there. One of my favorite Dave Barry quotes:
"I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar. What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good grammar. For example, I could say: 'Bad grammar is the leading cause of slow, painful death in North America,' or 'Without good grammar, the United States would have lost World War II.'"

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by paisano, posted 09-21-2004 8:48 PM paisano has not replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5925 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 26 of 62 (143812)
09-22-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rei
09-21-2004 7:38 PM


Re: dumb and dumber
rei writes:
Please explain how Dan Rather "[made] an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
1. Bush was misled.
2. He is called a "liar" by some Democrats.
1. Dan was misled (?).
Therefore, by Democrat logic, he is a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 7:38 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 12:53 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 62 (143815)
09-22-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ThingsChange
09-22-2004 12:19 AM


Isn't there a better term for failing to know something you should have?
Neither Dan Rather nor President Bush are idiots; they're not ignorant; in fact both of them have access to considerably better information than the rest of us.
Bush should have known the true story about the weapons, and would have, if he'd let the inspectors do their jobs. After all plenty of people at the time had expressed their doubts that Saddam had any significant weapons capability.
Rather should have known the true story about the documents, and would have, if CBS hadn't totally dismissed the experts who were telling them that.
So they both have plausible deniability. Whoopty-do. I'm sure in both cases that was planned - "let's run with this, even though there's a lot of doubt; we'll just be sure we can claim to have been 'misled' at the time." In both cases its an abdication of responsibility - Rather's to inform truthfully, and Bush's to lead truthfully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ThingsChange, posted 09-22-2004 12:19 AM ThingsChange has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rei, posted 09-22-2004 2:41 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 62 (143816)
09-22-2004 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by paisano
09-21-2004 8:48 PM


I am voting for Bush because I don't think Kerry is going to do any better, and would probably do worse.
What's Bush's plan for Iraq?
Does anybody know? From his statements today, it appears his plan is more UN involvement, which is exactly what you wingnuts were criticizing Kerry for suggesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by paisano, posted 09-21-2004 8:48 PM paisano has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 29 of 62 (143827)
09-22-2004 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
09-22-2004 12:53 AM


Not to mention, Dan Rather's actions didn't kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and over a thousand Americans, rally the world against us, cut public sentiment towards Americans literally in half in many countries around the world (meaning further into the single digits in many arab nations), cause a huge increase in international terrorism, cost US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, pull hundreds of thousands of soldiers away from their familes (and trap many over there with stop losses), etc.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 12:53 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 62 (143842)
09-22-2004 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by paisano
09-21-2004 8:48 PM


Grrrrrr... Rei got to answer your post before me.
Essentially she said what I was going to say, recap:
1) "If the U.N. fails to take action to enforce its own resolutions..." Can you explain how this was NOT the case?
2) all POSSIBLE DIPLOMATIC means would be used first... Explain how that was the case when diplomacy had already reopened inspections which were ongoing at the time of attack?
Just to let you know, I am NOT happy with Kerry and Edwards for failing to figure out Iraq did not pose the risk the White House said it did.
That said, that can't make them LESS than Bush who actually reversed his public stance on Iraq (remember at the beginning of his administration he had Powell state... accurately I might add... that Iraq posed no threats to its neighbors), as well as being on top of the information gathering process.
Remember Paisano, Bush was the executive and was responsible for the EXECUTION of properly gathering information for congress.
Again the allegedly "dumb Texan" fooled them. They should have known of his hawkish proclivities.
The linked statement clearly indicated that they wanted to avoid war by giving the president the ability to threaten war, but that the war had to be last resort.
That is what that "dumb texan" said he would do. If he had hawkish proclivities that would make him go back on his promises, then that doesn't make him any less a liar now does it?
But I do agree with you, I do not like that Kerry and Edwards gave Bush (who had already proven himself deceptive) a power that only Congress should have. I wasn't happy when Congress did that in the first Gulf War and I was for that one. I think Congress should never hand the President that kind of power as if he turns out to be a liar, we get what we see here.
However, and quite ironic, it seems as if you have confused political opinion with intellectual capacity. How can you label them as somehow dumb for believing it is important to give the president power to negotiate? If Bush violates the agreement then they can still hold him accountable, which they are... right?
...acted on incomplete and conflicting information which in hindsight may not have been sufficient to justify the attack
You seem to be acting on the same. The facts are all out now. Members of his administration were set to war on Iraq well before 9-11. They were held in check and then after 9-11 had free reign. They helped shape intelligence to set the stage and Bush went right along.
Bush's JOB is to make sure his intelligence gathering services are NOT providing incomplete and conflicting info for himself and Congress. Thus BUSH FAILED AT HIS JOB... not Congress.
Oh and by the way, not everyone needed hindsight. With the exception of thinking he'd still have some minor stockpiles of bio-chem agents, I was right on the money well before the Iraq invasion.
All of my sources were public and pretty well documented. Many of the things "discovered" to be questionable were so well before the invasion.
As I posted on EvC... at least I think it was here... there was a whole group of top intelligence officials that created an organization to criticize the incredibly bad intelligence analyses that the President was using.
Given this, should Kerry and Edwards have known better? Yes. However, Powell, Cheney, Rice, Bush, and many proBushies kept playing the "but we know more than you" card. Well it turns out they had NO additional info. They didn't even have agents on the ground there (and this was NOT known by congress until a congressional review). The best info was well known and public... Liars.
By the way I just loved how you dodged the other lies I listed... or do you have info about Bush sending the measure to the security council, or delivering the war budget?
Would Saddam still in power really be a better option ?
Yes. If we were set to do it all over again, it would be BETTER not to do it again. Although I do not like Saddam and I think it is better for the Iraqi people if he wasn't around, this was OBVIOUSLY not the proper mechanism for his removal.
Would I want him back in place? Hell no. Now that he is gone he is better kept gone. We can't redo the past.
But if you can honestly look at Iraq, especially with all the intel now on what we accomplished vs the costs and say that was a wise decision... wiser say than using the money and material to secure Afghanistan and fight a war on terrorism... well then you either have a lack of honesty or intellectual capacity.
We got rid of Saddam? BFD. Can you explain how that investment HELPED US? Let's say he was in power today. How would we or even the people of Iraq be that much worse off? It would be the same as it had been for 10 years before that... nothing good, but nothing worse.
Oh yeah they are "closer to democracy". Uh huh.
And by the way, when have Republicans been for giant public funded social programs for other nations? You know what people in the US would be better without? Poverty, lack of medicine, lack of education... But we won't be fighting that anytime soon, eh?
He has no strategy for Iraq other than to either parrot what Bush is doing, or make vague promises of increased foreign support
I'm nonplussed how any PRESIDENT is going to help Iraq at this point. It is going to take boots on the ground working with Iraqis that are attempting to set up their own government.
That and lots of money for social programs we wouldn't bother paying for in the US.
Iraq is Bush's legacy to the world. And in the case of the US, to our children and grandchildren. Once it was started everyone was forced to commit to doing something or let it roll.
What I find odd is that you think the future is all about Iraq. What a strange worldview. When Kerry talks about foreign support he is not just talking about Iraq and that is a major difference between him and Bush.
Bush was a unilateralist and created a huge divide among nations. Being a loner and a "my way or the highway" guy is NOT being a leader. A leader is rallying the international community behind something they want to commit themselves to.
If you read Blair's comments on this issue you will see that part of his support was because he realized that Bush was commited to a course of action and it was better to support it than stay out if it was going to happen anyway. No one in our "coalition" was FOR the war, as in they were calling for it and desiring it. It was support for the US if we went in.
There will be more problems in the future. I personally want a President that will engage with other world leaders and not simply speak at them like they're a bunch of monkeys.
Oh yeah, and if we go to war then I want one with a head on his shoulders.
Pre-invasion Kerry addressed cadets (I think it was West Point) and answered questions. When asked about war planning he gave a specific outline of how it should be handled in Iraq, especially with regard to AFTER major fighting ended, and what would happen if such planning was not in place. He was right on the money.
That wasn't hindsight.
That's an argument from personal incredulity.
No... it was a sarcastic punchline.
In actual honesty if you can't figure out the reality given the amount of info we have available right now... instead parroting proBush propaganda... then I am hoping you won't vote at all as I do not value your opinions or lack of insight.
You could always do something dumber... you could vote for Saddam.
Weren't you the guy chastising me for not being able to understand when a joke was being told?
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-22-2004 04:57 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by paisano, posted 09-21-2004 8:48 PM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 09-22-2004 10:30 AM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024