Did Bush lie about WMD?

[jimnyc]

Their can be little doubt the decision to wage this war came from the Whitehouse. The lobbying of the congress and the UN was done with the intell that they provided. The president wasted few oppurtunities to spread this deceat, giving four policy speeches in as many months quoting chapter and verse from the erronious intel. He is the president of the United States, he isn't responsible for the words that come out of his mouth, who is?

The lobbying that was done was with intelligence gathered from the CIA, NSA, DIA, US Military, Britain's Joint Intelligence committee, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghan intelligence agency, ISI from Pakistan, German intelligence, and yes - even some from the French. To claim the intel came solely from the White House is simply being uninformed.

I have no emotional investment in GWB one way or the other. Mostly I find him kind of...simple. Simple in his outlook on the world, equally simple in his proposed solutions. For this reason I have no faith in his expensive and extreme policies and would be happy to seem him defeated on '04.

What can be simpler than a bunch of democrats that read intel from at least 11 independent agencies and vote for invasion to remove the problem, only to turn around later and claim they were misled. Making it out to seem as if the White House received data that was confidential to the rest of the governing community is a mistake. Of course, certain portions of the data was highlighted in it's delivery, but I'd hate to think the democrats aren't intelligent enough to formulate their own conclusions.

We're a little far down the road to be blaming Hussein for this, don't you think? He was an idiot, now let's figure out who the idiot was who couldn't figure that out.

The entire world knew Saddam was an idiot. It appears the majority of our government was responsible for relying on what could turn out to be faulty intel, as was Britain's.

There is allready evidence, in the senate intelligence committee. They are going to be putting out a report shortly, at that point I will be more inclined to discuss criminal behavior on the part of the administration.

No, there is speculation. Evidence leads to charges, which there are none of yet, and most likely won't be.

Why are we getting the bill for Iraqi "freedom"? If the world needed to remove this menace, why wouldn't the world act. The reasop is he is hardly the only bloodthirsty maniac to run a third world country. He just had the misfortune to do that atop the second largest oil reserve on the face of the planet.

The majority, yes, but other countries made contributions to the rebuild effort as well, and some gave up Iraqi debt. Tsk, tsk, bringing up that 'ol Oil theory again, huh? LOL I've seen it about 50,000 times now and have yet to see a shred of evidence in support.

What do you stand for, Jim? What would I have to show you to prove to you that we were led down the primrose path by these clowns, and then how far would you be willing to go to see that it did not happen again?

I was hardly led down any path by anyone. I made up my own mind by reading data from all over the world, interviews, resolutions in the UN laid down by various countries, our countries leader, our Senate, our House of Representatives and Iraq's own history of terror. Should solid proof be found that anyone lied at any point, they should immediately be brought up on criminal charges. It won't happen though as we are all being yanked by political mudslinging at this point, when it comes to the Law - nothing of value will be produced (unless you are a conspiracy theorist and rely on information that our court system does not)

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
To claim the intel came solely from the White House is simply being uninformed.

I said the decision came from the whitehouse, not the intell.

Making it out to seem as if the White House received data that was confidential to the rest of the governing community is a mistake.

Actually that's accurate. CIA & NSA report directly to the president, not the congress. If the president wishes or if one of the committees request it, some intelligence is shared with the congress. Normaly, if the president sais "Iraq is developing a nuke", the congress takes him at his word since they are not analysts, which brings us to the next point.

Of course, certain portions of the data was highlighted in it's delivery, but I'd hate to think the democrats aren't intelligent enough to formulate their own conclusions.

Conclusions about intelligence is supplied by analysts, not elected officials. Congressman may of course, request the raw intelligence but all they normaly see is the findings, which is the analisys of the data.

The entire world knew Saddam was an idiot. It appears the majority of our government was responsible for relying on what could turn out to be faulty intel, as was Britain's.

Ahh, but the next question is where did the faulty intell come from, who was responsible for verifying it and why didn't they and how did GWB end up with a hand full of crap he mistook for solid gold.

No, there is speculation. Evidence leads to charges, which there are none of yet, and most likely won't be.

Right now, there is a battle going on in the Intell committee. A majority, who have been investigating this screw-up for six months want to call administration officials in to find out how the DOD "amatuer analysts bureau" managed to get it's findings mixed in with the CIA analyses on the presidents desk. Did he know it was a poltical hack in the DOD issuing these "findings"? If so why did he accept them? I'm not sure allowing one of your political operatives to spin intelligence in order to convince the electorate to allow you to invade an militarily insignificant oil rich nation is a crime...hey wait a minute, yeah that is a crime,...sorry.

Tsk, tsk, bringing up that 'ol Oil theory again, huh? LOL I've seen it about 50,000 times now and have yet to see a shred of evidence in support.

That's a good one, Jim. Not a shred, huh. Take a look at who is in charge of the Iraqi oil before you dismiss it so quickly. I think I mentioned once before, stealing oil is not a matter of removing the black liquid. It's more a mantter of who gets payed for it. The Iraqi government used to get the money, now it is Haliburton et.al. is the benificiary. Sorry Jim, those pesky old arabs think it is stealing when you overthrow thier government and then trott in your corporations to profit from their natural rescource. So does the rest of the world. Pretty much, only republicans and oil magnates fail to see this as theft.

I was hardly led down any path by anyone. I made up my own mind by reading data from all over the world, interviews, resolutions in the UN laid down by various countries, our countries leader, our Senate, our House of Representatives and Iraq's own history of terror.

If you guys were so right, what happenned to the hundreds of tons of WMDs' you guys claim he was stockpiing?

Should solid proof be found that anyone lied at any point, they should immediately be brought up on criminal charges. It won't happen though as we are all being yanked by political mudslinging at this point, when it comes to the Law - nothing of value will be produced (unless you are a conspiracy theorist and rely on information that our court system does not)

So to paraphrase, anything that comes out now will just be political mud? The senate intelligence committee hasn't completed its' investigation, look for that in April or May, with a final report in August, at that point we will know what they found. We know the Dems are going to ask for a special counsel to investigate this in the spring and they will likely get it since they have allready found enough to warrant it. The repub leadership is running scared, trying to block the investigation before it spreads to 1600 Penn. Ave., even going so far as to hack a memo off a dem staffers computer and releasing it to Fox news. Sounds like they are pretty desperate to keep a cover on this thing, don't it?
We already know that it is an intelligence screw-up on the magnitude of the Bay of Pigs, funny how my boy George T. seems to be riding the waves of this tempest as if he is uninvolved, instead of being the head of the CIA and chief architect of this mess. If your analysis is to be beleived, ie, why don't they fire him for incompetance? I gotta say it again, George T. runs that clownschool
BTW Hope everybody has a happy Thanksgiving, I gotta go baste a turkey...

 

[jimnyc]

Good morning, Dijetlo, and Happy Thanksgiving to you!

I said the decision came from the whitehouse, not the intell.

The decision came from congress, voted on by democrats and republicans alike.

Actually that's accurate. CIA & NSA report directly to the president, not the congress. If the president wishes or if one of the committees request it, some intelligence is shared with the congress. Normaly, if the president sais "Iraq is developing a nuke", the congress takes him at his word since they are not analysts, which brings us to the next point.

The senate intelligence committee has access to all data, unrestricted, and they are comprised of 9 republicans and 8 democrats.

Conclusions about intelligence is supplied by analysts, not elected officials. Congressman may of course, request the raw intelligence but all they normaly see is the findings, which is the analisys of the data.

You don't need an analyst to see a report that states "Iraq has the capability of making, procuring & utilizing WMD". I have no analytical experience and I can tell you what that means. This was similar findings throughout the world. Some thought we were in danger as a result and some didn't see a threat. Factor in all the humanitarian issues and you get a lopsided vote in the house and senate for invasion.

Ahh, but the next question is where did the faulty intell come from, who was responsible for verifying it and why didn't they and how did GWB end up with a hand full of crap he mistook for solid gold.

The "faulty intel" came from all over the world. Do searches on all the countries involved and you'll find similar intelligence. Some saw less of a threat, some thought action needed to be taken for assurance.

Right now, there is a battle going on in the Intell committee. A majority, who have been investigating this screw-up for six months want to call administration officials in to find out how the DOD "amatuer analysts bureau" managed to get it's findings mixed in with the CIA analyses on the presidents desk. Did he know it was a poltical hack in the DOD issuing these "findings"? If so why did he accept them? I'm not sure allowing one of your political operatives to spin intelligence in order to convince the electorate to allow you to invade an militarily insignificant oil rich nation is a crime...hey wait a minute, yeah that is a crime,...sorry.

We are all speculating at this point. If solid evidence of a crime had already been found there would have been charges. If it is found in the future there will be charges. I'm stating I don't think you'll see any charges. We'll just have to wait and see.

That's a good one, Jim. Not a shred, huh. Take a look at who is in charge of the Iraqi oil before you dismiss it so quickly. I think I mentioned once before, stealing oil is not a matter of removing the black liquid. It's more a mantter of who gets payed for it. The Iraqi government used to get the money, now it is Haliburton et.al. is the benificiary. Sorry Jim, those pesky old arabs think it is stealing when you overthrow thier government and then trott in your corporations to profit from their natural rescource. So does the rest of the world. Pretty much, only republicans and oil magnates fail to see this as theft.

You call that evidence? It clearly states the proceeds are to be used to help rebuild the country. Do you think we should let the insurgents manage the oil until their country is running properly? The logical step is to manage it until they are up to speed.

If you guys were so right, what happenned to the hundreds of tons of WMDs' you guys claim he was stockpiing?

Can you provide the post where I stated such? Can you provide data showing the government stated such? This is the closest reference I can find from one of his speeches:

" In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th"

It just states he had produced that much, which he did. Lots were destroyed and accounted for, lots weren't. To this day their has not been full disclosure on the whereabouts of chemical weapons that were once accounted for. With that knowledge in hand pre-war I would vote to remove the possible threat. I believe in being proactive as opposed to reactive.

So to paraphrase, anything that comes out now will just be political mud?

When it's bickering between 2 parties, yes. When and if there is concrete evidence of wrongdoing I will be the first to acknowledge.

The senate intelligence committee hasn't completed its' investigation, look for that in April or May, with a final report in August, at that point we will know what they found. We know the Dems are going to ask for a special counsel to investigate this in the spring and they will likely get it since they have allready found enough to warrant it. The repub leadership is running scared, trying to block the investigation before it spreads to 1600 Penn. Ave., even going so far as to hack a memo off a dem staffers computer and releasing it to Fox news. Sounds like they are pretty desperate to keep a cover on this thing, don't it?

Their has been investigations on one anothers parties since the beginning of politics, and the other always try to impede the investigations. I take them with a grain of salt and await the findings.

We already know that it is an intelligence screw-up on the magnitude of the Bay of Pigs, funny how my boy George T. seems to be riding the waves of this tempest as if he is uninvolved, instead of being the head of the CIA and chief architect of this mess. If your analysis is to be beleived, ie, why don't they fire him for incompetance? I gotta say it again, George T. runs that clownschool

Then they might as well fire the heads of the previous 11 committees I listed, as they all came back with similar data. There will be a lot of unemployment around the world!

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The decision came from congress, voted on by democrats and republicans alike.

Congress voted to authorize the use of force to remove WMDs’ from Iraq.

The senate intelligence committee has access to all data, unrestricted, and they are comprised of 9 republicans and 8 democrats.

And they began their investigation in April 03, three months after the vote.

You don't need an analyst to see a report that states "Iraq has the capability of making, procuring & utilizing WMD". I have no analytical experience and I can tell you what that means.

Really? Consider this for a moment. You have “the capability of making, procuring & utilizing WMD". The prime suspect in the "Anthrax letters" case was a lone US citizen operating with readily available equipment and material, according to the FBI. The question isn’t “could they” because every country can make this crap. The question is “are they”? That’s why you need an analyst.

This was similar findings throughout the world.

The US and GB attacked. It wasn’t the rest of the world bombing Baghdad.

Factor in all the humanitarian issues and you get a lopsided vote in the house and senate for invasion.

Read the resolution
“Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';”

The logical step is to manage it until they are up to speed.

No, the logical step would have been to let the Iraqis manage their own affairs. We chose not to do that, preferring instead to invade and occupy the nation, then bringing in US corporations to rebuild it and harvest its’ natural resources and, as much as we possibly can, we are making the Iraqis pay for it. Can you dispute that is, in fact, what we did?

Can you provide the post where I stated such? Can you provide data showing the government stated such? This is the closest reference I can find from one of his speeches

Man, you know I get really bored reading GWBs' speeches. Its' like some kind of karmic punishment you keep inflicting on me. The only saving grace is I get to excerpt the crap out of them...
I just have to go to whitehouse.gov and look at any speech involving Iraq made prior to the US discovering they didn’t have any WMDs’ (4/03). In the interest of brevity, here’s a couple nuggetts.
Here
“The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally. Today's vote also sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: it must disarm and comply with all existing U.N. resolutions, or it will be forced to comply. There are no other options for the Iraqi regime. There can be no negotiations. The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end..”
and here
It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

When and if there is concrete evidence of wrongdoing I will be the first to acknowledge it.

:clap1:

 

[jimnyc]

Congress voted to authorize the use of force to remove WMDs’ from Iraq.

Oh really, that's all? How about the following that were on the resolution that went to the house and senate:

"Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism"

"Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998"

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations"

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait"

"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council"

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens"

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949"

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"

Are you confident they voted only on WMD?

And they began their investigation in April 03, three months after the vote.

If the Senate Intelligence Committee waits till after the fact to whine about data they had access to themselves prior, well, they are whiners.

Really? Consider this for a moment. You have “the capability of making, procuring & utilizing WMD". The prime suspect in the "Anthrax letters" case was a lone US citizen operating with readily available equipment and material, according to the FBI. The question isn’t “could they” because every country can make this crap. The question is “are they”? That’s why you need an analyst.

The fact that the "could" or were "in the process of trying to procure" is plenty enough. Waiting around for them to have a final product ready to use isn't a wise way to prevent terrorism, especially given the fact that they have already used these types of weapons already.

The US and GB attacked. It wasn’t the rest of the world bombing Baghdad.

The US Military attacked. Our House of Representatives, Senate, Bush administration & their respective partners were the catalyst for invasion. The rest of the world most certainly participated in one way or another. Allowing the use of airspace, military bases, intel & the likes is working in an effort of support.

“Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';”

You seem to have forgotten these sections:

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;"

"Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'"

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"

No, the logical step would have been to let the Iraqis manage their own affairs. We chose not to do that, preferring instead to invade and occupy the nation, then bringing in US corporations to rebuild it and harvest its’ natural resources and, as much as we possibly can, we are making the Iraqis pay for it. Can you dispute that is, in fact, what we did?

Let them manage the oil themselves? Did you expect the oil to last more than a couple of years?
The logical way is to support that effort until they can do it on their own. It makes sense to me that the companies doing the work receive compensation for their efforts. How much was the Iraqi oil benefitting the people when Saddam was in charge?

In the interest of brevity, here’s a couple nuggetts.

The problem with providing "nuggets" is that the you leave out all the other pertinent reasons for invasion, I guess because just highlighting the WMD it appears as if that is the sole reason we invaded. You can continue to argue just the WMD subject but that won't change the fact that we invaded Iraq for a myriad of reasons. It also won't change the fact that our house and senate voted on a resolution which included ALL those reasons, not just WMD.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Are you confident they voted only on WMD?

The document goes on at great length about his violations, which we are not able to demonstrate actually occurred. The inspectors were invited back prior to the initiation of hostilities and we vetoed it. As for this part:
"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region." ?
Good luck sellin' that one. Who do we invade next in the name of democracy? The Saudis or the Kuwaitis? Both are Dictitorial Monarchys.

If the Senate Intelligence Committee waits till after the fact to whine about data they had access to themselves prior, well, they are whiners.

Whiners you say? Orin Hatch is a whiner? The man has no personality at all (I think he might be dead, but am unwilling to debate this point until more data becomes available). I think they have to wait until something happens until they can investigate it. They wouldn't challenge GWBs' assumptions, they are not an adversary of the administration. They only became involved when the extent of the intelligence failure became known.

The fact that the "could" or were "in the process of trying to procure" is plenty enough.

Then who isn't on the list for possible invasion, since every nation has the capability?

The US Military attacked. Our House of Representatives, Senate, Bush administration & their respective partners were the catalyst for invasion. The rest of the world most certainly participated in one way or another. Allowing the use of airspace, military bases, intel & the likes is working in an effort of support.

Remember when Turkey told the 4th ID to take a hike, no northern front for Iraq? Saudi Arabia refused to be used as a staging area and these are our allies in the ME. Their were a lot of voices in the UN telling us "NO" just prior to the invasion. Dude, come on you remember this stuff. The idea that the world invaded Iraq is intellectually dishonest.

You seem to have forgotten these sections:

Forgotten? No...I wouldn't say I forgot them. Excerpt the parts of the post that support your arguments and I'll excerpt mine. Mine was first on the list :

Let them manage the oil themselves? Did you expect the oil to last more than a couple of years?

It aint our oil, jim. If they want to pump it all up out of the ground, process it into a giant surfboard, have every Kurd in the country get on it and they can surf together to New Jersey, as long as the Kurds were OK with that, we don't have the right to interfere, until the Mother of all surfboards floats into US waters. BTW, where are you getting the figure of a couple of years?

The logical way is to support that effort until they can do it on their own. It makes sense to me that the companies doing the work receive compensation for their efforts. How much was the Iraqi oil benefitting the people when Saddam was in charge?

I asked you if you agree that we
"invade and occupy the nation, then bringing in US corporations to rebuild it and harvest its’ natural resources and, as much as we possibly can, we are making the Iraqis pay for it"
If you can't dispute that statement, what more proof do you need that we're stealing their oil. It isn't US oil, is it? You claim that we invaded to make them free, yet we don't extend that consideration to countrys fifty miles from our borders, so I can't help but consider "freedom" to be a doubtful motivating factor in our current actions.

The problem with providing "nuggets" is that the you leave out all the other pertinent reasons for invasion, I guess because just highlighting the WMD it appears as if that is the sole reason we invaded.

I'm not, it was mostly the oil.
The myriad of reasons has boiled down to a single reason. Humanitarian considerations. Its' not the WMDs', a missing airman, stolen Kuwaitti property or UN sanctions. All of these arguments can be rebutted effectively. The humanitarian argument is strong because it is true, the rest of the rationale is not. That said, Cuba lies fifty miles from the tip of Florida. Cuba has it all, mass executions, poisonings, slave labor, it's a cornecopia of Human rights abuses AND IT IS FIFTY MILES AWAY!!!
Sure, in the end, if we follow the stated plan, in about three years there will be popular elections. If the resistances can be quelled sufficiently to have them. If polling stations are going to come under mortar fire, you wont see elections, and the government will remain a US puppet.
In point of fact, Guantanimo Bay is a violation of UN human rights, so if we are going to cast the mote from our neighbors eye, perhaps we might begin with the moat in our own.

 

[jimnyc]

I'm not, it was mostly the oil.

Ok, at this point we are just rehashing the same old arguments. I'm not going to continue to argue theories, suppositions & opinions. I laid out my facts and you laid yours out. We'll have to agree to disagree.

One thing remains: The group of people that the citizens elected to our government all voted for invasion. This invasion led to occupation which still exists, which we have no choice now but to deal with. Any "lying" or "stealing" that occurred will surely lead to charges within or from the international community. When these official charges are leveled I will get on my knees and acknowledge you were right.

I think we ran the course here. More news will come along we can debate. It was a pleasure debating this one with you, I've learned quite a deal from your posts and the research it forced me to do. And it was all civil, I thank you for that.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I think we ran the course here. More news will come along we can debate. It was a pleasure debating this one with you, I've learned quite a deal from your posts and the research it forced me to do. And it was all civil, I thank you for that.

Right back at ya, the next year or so should be a lot of fun, I'm sure we'll be doing this again at some point (I'm already looking forward to it.)
Excellent job, jimnyc, you and some of your cohorts are why this is so much more fun with a little understanding and good humor.

 

[jimnyc]

Thanks for the kind words, dijetlo.

As the board gainst steam and we all learn more about one another, I think things will settle down a bit. When you learn to respect the person you are sharing data with the "debates" become that much more enjoyable.

Every person I have had issues with so far has a great degree of intelligence. All have shown that they can communicate as regular guys and girls. It's a shame when debates turn sour and we lose track of that.

I think all parties involved should participate in the bottom half of this board as well. Posting about books, movies, sports, music and everyday chat will allow us to learn more about one another than our political beliefs and "put a face" to the person on the other end. I think once that's established people tend to respond more respectfully.

Once again, thank you!

(would you believe I'm still full from all the food I ate yesterday? and I guess the 5 pieces of pie I had today didn't help!)