Hope and Change for the Republican Party

[Dr.House]

You really did not just ask that question, did you (the first one)? Even in sarcasm/jest?

Yes... and quite sarcastic...

I get tired of hearing the same argument about the birthplace of the hijackers...

The culture of radical Islam has no border...

What if we had to go to every non-American country to fight radical Islamists?

Why go to all of them? Shouldn't we concentrate on the ones hell bent on wanting us dead with the means to do so?

 

[Xenophon]

Maybe if we didn't have forces all over the world we would not have gotten involved in a land war in Asia, let along two of them.

GoP lost for many reasons, the wars, corruption, lack of focus and often hypocritcal behavior.

If they wish to reinvent themselves they need more then to repaet the 'war of choice is bad' mantra.

Next time they need to say no to invasions.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Yes... and quite sarcastic...

I get tired of hearing the same argument about the birthplace of the hijackers...

The culture of radical Islam has no border...

What if we had to go to every non-American country to fight radical Islamists?

Why go to all of them? Shouldn't we concentrate on the ones hell bent on wanting us dead with the means to do so?

What if they all hated us as much as the ones in the oppressive theocracies?

 

[Oscar Wao]

maybe if we didn't have forces all over the world we would not have gotten involved in a land war in asia, let along two of them.

Gop lost for many reasons, the wars, corruption, lack of focus and often hypocritcal behavior.

If they wish to reinvent themselves they need more then to repaet the 'war of choice is bad' mantra.

Next time they need to say no to invasions.

^this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^

 

[kwc57]

ok that answers just about ZERO of my questions, thanx for being so informative.

Knock yourself out.

Congressman Tom Cole (OK-4) | About Tom Cole

Congressman Tom Cole (OK-4) | Committee Assignments

legislative-issues

ok, thats all fine and good, so which of his long standing beliefs did he throw under the bus to be the new and improved tom cole that is so much better than the old one?

Really? Seriously? Do you need a bib while I feed you? Do I need to burp you afterwards?

 

[kwc57]

You really did not just ask that question, did you (the first one)? Even in sarcasm/jest?

Yes... and quite sarcastic...

I get tired of hearing the same argument about the birthplace of the hijackers...

The culture of radical Islam has no border...

Did Iraq have radical Islam under Saddam? Is that why we attacked them?

 

[Dr.House]

What if we had to go to every non-American country to fight radical Islamists?

Why go to all of them? Shouldn't we concentrate on the ones hell bent on wanting us dead with the means to do so?

What if they all hated us as much as the ones in the oppressive theocracies?

We trust our military leaders and intellegence gathering operations to determine who is a threat to Americans and American interests...

Do they always get it right? Hell no, but I still trust them over politicians any day...

 

[Sweet Willy]

"...abandon former President George W. Bush’s doctrine of unprovoked aggression"

Yeah, if you ignore that whole 9/11 thingy it makes perfect sense.

How not to win elections: Let the LMSM do your thinking for you

And how many Iraqis hijacked those planes? I forget.

That's right, it was nearly all Saudi Arabians that attacked us. Which is why George attacked Saudi.......wait a minute........has anyone else noticed that we attacked the wrong people?

Wise up dumbass. "9/11" isn't the magic number that excuses idiotic behavior anymore.

yep, we should have waged war on the saudies, took over their country and annexed it driving all the mohammadan to the sea. think im joking? im not.

And I wouldn't be joking to agree.

Saudi Arabia is ground zero for the people who attacked us. They were born, raised and educated there. There was 10x more justification to attack them there than in Afghanistan. What exactly Iraq had to do with anything at all is still a mystery.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You really did not just ask that question, did you (the first one)? Even in sarcasm/jest?

Yes... and quite sarcastic...

I get tired of hearing the same argument about the birthplace of the hijackers...

The culture of radical Islam has no border...

Did Iraq have radical Islam under Saddam? Is that why we attacked them?

Which was the BIG lie. Saddam crushed radicals in Iraq. No WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, no involvement in 9/11. A complete waste.

If we really wanted to bring the Islamic nut jobs out of the wood work, we would have taken Saudi Arabia. They produced, educated and PAID FOR 9/11. It was nearly ALL Saudi money that paid for 9/11.

 

[kwc57]

Yes... and quite sarcastic...

I get tired of hearing the same argument about the birthplace of the hijackers...

The culture of radical Islam has no border...

Did Iraq have radical Islam under Saddam? Is that why we attacked them?

Which was the BIG lie. Saddam crushed radicals in Iraq. No WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, no involvement in 9/11. A complete waste.

If we really wanted to bring the Islamic nut jobs out of the wood work, we would have taken Saudi Arabia. They produced, educated and PAID FOR 9/11. It was nearly ALL Saudi money that paid for 9/11.

It was all a neo-con gamble. Let's find someone over there that we can run in, kick their ass and make an example of to their neighbors. You know, someone who is incapable of putting up a fight. Oh yeah, there is this country that we had a war with a decade ago and defanged. They would be perfect. People already see them as a villian and we can sell that they could plausably have ties to terrorists in the region. We can also raise the spectre of WMD's since they had some before we took them away. Yeah, the perfect candidate to show theat we are tough and won't take any crap. As long as we make the American citizens fear a terrorist attack by this would be enemy, we can get our point across.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Did Iraq have radical Islam under Saddam? Is that why we attacked them?

Which was the BIG lie. Saddam crushed radicals in Iraq. No WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, no involvement in 9/11. A complete waste.

If we really wanted to bring the Islamic nut jobs out of the wood work, we would have taken Saudi Arabia. They produced, educated and PAID FOR 9/11. It was nearly ALL Saudi money that paid for 9/11.

It was all a neo-con gamble. Let's find someone over there that we can run in, kick their ass and make an example of to their neighbors. You know, someone who is incapable of putting up a fight. Oh yeah, there is this country that we had a war with a decade ago and defanged. They would be perfect. People already see them as a villian and we can sell that they could plausably have ties to terrorists in the region. We can also raise the spectre of WMD's since they had some before we took them away. Yeah, the perfect candidate to show theat we are tough and won't take any crap. As long as we make the American citizens fear a terrorist attack by this would be enemy, we can get our point across.

I've heard all of the far reaching explanations for the Iraq invasion and none of them really add up.

GW had a hard on for Saddam. That's the bottom line.

 

[kwc57]

Which was the BIG lie. Saddam crushed radicals in Iraq. No WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, no involvement in 9/11. A complete waste.

If we really wanted to bring the Islamic nut jobs out of the wood work, we would have taken Saudi Arabia. They produced, educated and PAID FOR 9/11. It was nearly ALL Saudi money that paid for 9/11.

It was all a neo-con gamble. Let's find someone over there that we can run in, kick their ass and make an example of to their neighbors. You know, someone who is incapable of putting up a fight. Oh yeah, there is this country that we had a war with a decade ago and defanged. They would be perfect. People already see them as a villian and we can sell that they could plausably have ties to terrorists in the region. We can also raise the spectre of WMD's since they had some before we took them away. Yeah, the perfect candidate to show theat we are tough and won't take any crap. As long as we make the American citizens fear a terrorist attack by this would be enemy, we can get our point across.

I've heard all of the far reaching explanations for the Iraq invasion and none of them really add up.

GW had a hard on for Saddam. That's the bottom line.

Indeed, along with a large part of his staff who had lobbied Clinton to attack Iraq.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The GOP lost control, because the employers ( as a whole ) have been pathetic. Pathetic employers hiring political hacks and political whores, believing that voting party is all it takes.

We don't have a GOP problem or a Democrat problem. We have a "We The People" problem.

To say that the GOP lost because of the war, is to not understand the core problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"...abandon former President George W. Bush’s doctrine of unprovoked aggression"

Yeah, if you ignore that whole 9/11 thingy it makes perfect sense.

How not to win elections: Let the LMSM do your thinking for you

And how many Iraqis hijacked those planes? I forget.

That's right, it was nearly all Saudi Arabians that attacked us. Which is why George attacked Saudi.......wait a minute........has anyone else noticed that we attacked the wrong people?

Wise up dumbass. "9/11" isn't the magic number that excuses idiotic behavior anymore.

After 9/11 there were a lot of Saudi princes who met untimely ends. Now, I'm not necessarily saying they got whacked, but it sure looked to me like the Corleone Baptism for a while.

 

[MaggieMae]

I dont know the guy but he sounds like a pansy ass, funny you trust a guy who all of a suden "changes' his tune when he thinks it will get him something. like being lied to or what? what was he before his big change? from his history posted looks like he was mr. big shot republican, so what is he now?

What is he now? He undoubtedly knows he's a loser unless the Republican Party gets its act together and denounces all the lunatics that identify with it.

Political Party Affiliation: 30 States Blue, 4 Red in 2009 So Far

 

[MaggieMae]

"...abandon former President George W. Bush’s doctrine of unprovoked aggression"

Yeah, if you ignore that whole 9/11 thingy it makes perfect sense.

How not to win elections: Let the LMSM do your thinking for you

And how many Iraqis hijacked those planes? I forget.

That's right, it was nearly all Saudi Arabians that attacked us. Which is why George attacked Saudi.......wait a minute........has anyone else noticed that we attacked the wrong people?

Wise up dumbass. "9/11" isn't the magic number that excuses idiotic behavior anymore.

So which country should we have attacked in response to Timothy McVeigh?

Why is it that "terrorism is borderless" such a tough concept?

Good grief, even Dr. House could intelligently put you in your place for that. Iraq (and Saddam Hussein) was no threat to the United States. Please tell me we're not all going THERE again...

 

[Sweet Willy]

"...abandon former President George W. Bush’s doctrine of unprovoked aggression"

Yeah, if you ignore that whole 9/11 thingy it makes perfect sense.

How not to win elections: Let the LMSM do your thinking for you

And how many Iraqis hijacked those planes? I forget.

That's right, it was nearly all Saudi Arabians that attacked us. Which is why George attacked Saudi.......wait a minute........has anyone else noticed that we attacked the wrong people?

Wise up dumbass. "9/11" isn't the magic number that excuses idiotic behavior anymore.

After 9/11 there were a lot of Saudi princes who met untimely ends. Now, I'm not necessarily saying they got whacked, but it sure looked to me like the Corleone Baptism for a while.

Maybe so. Who knows.

We should have treated Saudi the same as Afghanistan. They were harboring terrorist and more importantly, terrorist finance. Not to mention the radical schools and recruiting of extremist.

Nothing can change the fact that we were attacked by Saudis, led by a Saudi, financed with Saudi money. It is an amazing demonstration of American propoganda and influence. To be attacked by Saudi Arabians and respond to Iraq. If I didn't see it myself I wouldn't have believed it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why go to all of them? Shouldn't we concentrate on the ones hell bent on wanting us dead with the means to do so?

What if they all hated us as much as the ones in the oppressive theocracies?

We trust our military leaders and intellegence gathering operations to determine who is a threat to Americans and American interests...

Do they always get it right? Hell no, but I still trust them over politicians any day...

And of course the ones directing the war were not politicians...yeah, okay. Hell if Rumsfeld hadn't given the order to allow Afghan tribal units to go after bin Laden at Tora Bora, the Special Forces would have nailed him in December 2003.

 

[MaggieMae]

Which was the BIG lie. Saddam crushed radicals in Iraq. No WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, no involvement in 9/11. A complete waste.

If we really wanted to bring the Islamic nut jobs out of the wood work, we would have taken Saudi Arabia. They produced, educated and PAID FOR 9/11. It was nearly ALL Saudi money that paid for 9/11.

It was all a neo-con gamble. Let's find someone over there that we can run in, kick their ass and make an example of to their neighbors. You know, someone who is incapable of putting up a fight. Oh yeah, there is this country that we had a war with a decade ago and defanged. They would be perfect. People already see them as a villian and we can sell that they could plausably have ties to terrorists in the region. We can also raise the spectre of WMD's since they had some before we took them away. Yeah, the perfect candidate to show theat we are tough and won't take any crap. As long as we make the American citizens fear a terrorist attack by this would be enemy, we can get our point across.

I've heard all of the far reaching explanations for the Iraq invasion and none of them really add up.

GW had a hard on for Saddam. That's the bottom line.

That's not true. The accepted myth that GWB wanted to go after Saddam "because he threatened to kill my daddy" was waaaaaaay overplayed. Read Woodward's second book "Plan of Attack" on this (he had access to top level interviews and meetings and the book vetted before publication), and you will know that it was Cheney and Rumsfeld (both political veterans of the first Gulf War) who USED the attacks of 911 to push for an invasion of Iraq and had to do a lot of convincing to force George W. Bush to go along with it. In fact, when Bush first read the gathering of "intelligence" presented by Cheney's little quasi WMD investigating team, Bush's response was "Is that all you've got?"

 

[Harry Dresden]

And of course the ones directing the war were not politicians...yeah, okay. Hell if Rumsfeld hadn't given the order to allow Afghan tribal units to go after bin Laden at Tora Bora, the Special Forces would have nailed him in December2003.[/B]

thats what happens when a little turd following an agenda is in charge ......