Sure, no media bias

[DKSuddeth]

oh please, like the US has NEVER supported a terrorist organization before. but I guess YOU call them 'freedom fighters', right?

paying their families AFTER the fact, let me repeat that for you, AFTER the fact is NOT paying a terrorist a paycheck.

By being the only superpower...yes we do decide who controls what countries across this planet. Sorry but that's what you get to do when you have nobody that is remotely close to your status

so you DISAGREE with vice president cheney when he says we are not imperialists? get your head out of your ass, SON, and realize that what YOU just wrote indicates that you think the US is the lead government in an empire.

It shows how hypocritical your arguements are! Pray for those who have killed but defend killing by labelling it "choice"

yet another stupid and tired argument from the 'right' about trying to run other peoples lives. I'm pro choice, NOT pro-abortion no matter HOW you try to spin the bullshit any other way and it still had ZERO to do with the post at hand. just another attempt to throw fuel to an already blazing fire thats sure to destroy any bipartisanship to make this country better.

your next two statement still have ZERO to do with the argument at hand.

michael savage is one step below ann coulter and rush limbaugh in the light of being nothing more than a pundit wannabe. it would serve you better to leave him and his idiotic verbage out of your posts.

 

[jon_forward]

with all due respect Dk, how can you say that getting a check from saddam[before or after the suicide bomber blast themself and whoever is near them to kindom come]does not support terrorist and terrorism. 25 or 35 large over there is alot of jin-wa!!! WE are THE LEADER!!!!! period!!! if we dont lead...who would you have us fellow??? france??? I understand that you may favor a hands off type of world leadership Dk... But someone has to step forward and grab the reins and I am glad G.W has .... and no I would not have yelled bloody-murder if another admin had done what this one has....all this admin has done is try and insure the safety of us...you and me

 

[MeSSeNJa]

Sir I never said that the United states has not propped up dictators. LOL basically the entire continent of South America is propped-up dictators who are puppets of the US government. Saddam was propped up by the US...true...but that was when Iran was viewed as more of an imminent threat and the cold war was still being waged.

Imperialism - The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition.

Bush has made it clear we will not stay a military power in Iraq. Now you may say...oh well if they have bases in the area then they techincally have not left the area! Well...explain bases off India in the indian ocean and guantanamo bay. We are not technically in power in that area.

Yea I suppose the actual direct statement had nothing to do with the post... but the underlying point that Liberals are notoriously hypocritical very much does.

And as far as pundit wannabe's go...Michael Moore is the prime example.

 

[jon_forward]

I like the poster....

 

[DKSuddeth]

explain bases off India in the indian ocean and guantanamo bay. We are not technically in power in that area.

we have a military presence in that area, do you think that if we broke diplomatic ties with india, we'd leave diego garcia? we never left cuba, so what does that say?

but the underlying point that Liberals are notoriously hypocritical very much does.

I'll give you as much leeway on that as you will when I say that the current republican leadership is as hypocritical as well.

And as far as pundit wannabe's go...Michael Moore is the prime example

Him, chomsky, and franken might as well hold hands with savage, coulter, and limbaugh on both sides of the chasm.

 

[MeSSeNJa]

I like this poster and I thought it was appropriate...yet not directed towards anyone in particular...

When I think Liberal I think...

-Politically correct
-Pro-Choice borderline Pro-Abortion
-Reverse Discrimination
-...of every documentary that does not deal primarily with the subject at hand but widens the racial gap by declaring what the "black soldier" had done rather than hear about what the Asian or Latino soldier has done
-Tax Hikers taking more of the money that I earn and the redistribution of wealth
-Gay marriage and the ADOPTION of children in to these unions
-The above subject destroying my church
-Multiculturalism
-MORAL RELATIVISM
-The downfall of society and the rise of socialism
-The death of the White, Christian, Straight, Upper-middle class Male

 

[DKSuddeth]

-Politically correct

by my speech you should realize I don't give a damn about politically correct.

-Pro-Choice borderline Pro-Abortion

again, mixing the two means nothing. simply a means to spin your position above something you do not approve of.

-Reverse Discrimination

and this means what to me, me being half native american.

-...of every documentary that does not deal primarily with the subject at hand but widens the racial gap by declaring what the "black soldier" had done rather than hear about what the Asian or Latino soldier has done

as a former marine who has served with other marines of all colors, races, and creeds this has no meaning to me either.

-Tax Hikers taking more of the money that I earn and the redistribution of wealth

then let the republicans get rid of the pro business aspect of your party and let companies compete evenly instead of buying favortism and legislature.

-Gay marriage and the ADOPTION of children in to these unions

gets under your skin, doesn't it, allowing people to do what makes them happy provided it does no harm to you or your family.

-The above subject destroying my church

are we now the united states of catholocism?

-Multiculturalism

this means what? I'm american, my neighbor jamal is american, my coworker jadeep is american. what the hell are you talking about?

-MORAL RELATIVISM

so I'm supposed to believe what you believe because YOU say its right?

-The downfall of society and the rise of socialism

yup, the corporatists and elitists of america certainly have MY best interests at heart, don't they.

-The death of the White, Christian, Straight, Upper-middle class Male

its a bitch having to compete fairly, isn't it?

 

[MeSSeNJa]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
by my speech you should realize I don't give a damn about politically correct.

I'll give you that, you're one of the few

again, mixing the two means nothing. simply a means to spin your position above something you do not approve of.

Meh...I could care less if you don't understand the ideas behind it

and this means what to me, me being half native american.

it means nothing to you, that's why I fight it

as a former marine who has served with other marines of all colors, races, and creeds this has no meaning to me either.

Can't tell you how much I respect you for your service...but you are entirely misguided on your politics. It falls in to line with what I referred to as multiculturalism

then let the republicans get rid of the pro business aspect of your party and let companies compete evenly instead of buying favortism and legislature.

See...that is the idea behind capitalism. The small die out while the strong continue. It's capitalistic evolution. Bothers you that some companies do better than others doesn't it? By the way I never associated myself with the Republican party. I am a conservative.

gets under your skin, doesn't it, allowing people to do what makes them happy provided it does no harm to you or your family.

The Judeo-Christian ethical system created this country from nothing. Honestly, I would rather my little sister be taught by a teacher who is heterosexual rather than homosexual. Consider homosexual boy scout leaders sleeping in the same tents as small pre-adolescent boys. If you honestly have no problem accepting someone who condones perversion then my theory that liberalism is a mental disorder is correct.

are we now the united states of catholocism?

It's a free church but sure...why not

this means what? I'm american, my neighbor jamal is american, my coworker jadeep is american. what the hell are you talking about?

No society has functioned correctly where more than two distinct races have mixed for more than one hundred years other than the United States. It's probably only a matter of time.

so I'm supposed to believe what you believe because YOU say its right?

I am a Conservative Christian but you make your decisions for yourself

yup, the corporatists and elitists of america certainly have MY best interests at heart, don't they.

So if we just destroy the privatization of the healthcare, insurance, and major resource industries along with redistributing all the wealth so we all go back to even that will make our economic situation better and increase production? Or is your arguement that the only reason PURE Socialism has not worked is that the right people haven't been in charge?

its a bitch having to compete fairly, isn't it?

Wow...people forget that the only reason this country got anywhere is because of White people. Look at africa, look at how the country functioned before we came to America. Granted it was peaceful but seriously sir, would you rather be living in pre-modern housing or the comfortable living conditions which you are today. People have what they need and forget who got them there. As for competing fairly, we were fair the day that discrimination ended and it is finally over. It's just a bunch of over-reacting.

 

[jones]

So there is no question that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction

Powell

"After secretary of state Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations security council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr Powell left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the security council's offer of a 'final opportunity' to disarm.

Bush

Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

Powell
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/disarm/violations.htm

We are also taking every action we can to prevent the Iraqi regime from using its hidden weapons of mass destruction.

Bush
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/26/140759.shtml

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Bush, March 17, 2003

We know for a fact there are weapons there."

Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."

Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." --Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003

Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003

when U.S. and British intelligence picked up signs last week that Iraqi units were preparing to destroy the country's southern oil fields, Franks launched a ground invasion two days ahead of schedule

Bush
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Politics/Iraq_commanderinchief030326.html

"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."

Rumsfeld
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/printable529569.shtml


BIG PICTURE

 

[jimnyc]

Jones, take the time to educate yourself and read Tenet's speech from yesterday. I would have told you the same things if I had read the pre-war intelligence.

You posted quotes that have been posted here hundreds of times already. You have posted NO LIES at all. Being repetitive doesn't make you correct. Thanks for playing!

 

[DKSuddeth]

mesenja, you were doing alright til this point:

See...that is the idea behind capitalism. The small die out while the strong continue. It's capitalistic evolution. Bothers you that some companies do better than others doesn't it?

If another company provided better product, better server, and cheaper price then I'd say they deserver to win. What is happening, though, is huge chains like walmart have left from that philosophy of capitalism and have now gone into a destructive form of capitalism by restricting attempts at competition through anti trust and monopolistic actions.

The Judeo-Christian ethical system created this country from nothing.

from nothing? I dare say it was borne out of the blood, sweat, and innumerous tears of the many native americans that were wiped out and herded away like cattle, off the backs of african slaves ripped from their homelands, from the smoking remains of the witch trials in salem just to name a few.

Consider homosexual boy scout leaders sleeping in the same tents as small pre-adolescent boys.

you appear unable to differentiate homosexuality and pedophilia. the two do not go hand in hand, pardon the pun, with one another despite most peoples attempts to make them that way.

I am a Conservative Christian but you make your decisions for yourself

then why all the judgements of others?

So if we just destroy the privatization of the healthcare, insurance, and major resource industries along with redistributing all the wealth so we all go back to even that will make our economic situation better and increase production?

where did I ever say to destroy it? privatization would be a wonderful thing so long as it could be regulated to be fair for all parties involved. The one thing that most people forget is that capitalism is great because of 'opportunity' and is dying right now because large corporations are denying that opportunity to others.

 

[jones]

Originally posted by jimnyc
There you go, specific enough? IT WAS NEVER SAID THAT IRAQ WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT!!

You keep saying that like its true. nope, you're wrong.

 

[Aquarian]

Jimnyc- So why not say that? Why not state WHO said EXACTLY what?

good question. both sides spin everything under the sun, I think we can both admit that. Then the media takes everything and blows it out of proportion. This, imo, reflects the change over the last 40 years or so from the media reporting the news to providing entertainment, leading to the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality. Rumors treated as news/fact, not good...

zhukov- Well, isn't that true?

Well.... this post is about whether or not the administration called the threat imminent as well as whether or not it was indeed imminent. bartlett tacitly called it imminent by responding in the affirmative to the reporters question. Tenet says it was never considered by the cia to be imminent. up to us to shuffle thru the muck and decide what/who to believe.

Points from MeSSeNJa's post

- Nobody seems to remember 9/11
- 9/11 was caused by terrorists
- Terrorists were supported by Saddam (paying homicide bombers' families $35,000 to kill Jews)

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say" Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda's suicidal hijackings, Rumsfeld said.

"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11," Rice added.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/118345p-106678c.html

but that still left 70% of america under the impression that saddam was directly related to 9/11...

- Revenge is a natural human emotion
- Countless thousands were spared execution for their views and opinions by overthrowing the dictator

Revenge killing is not tolerated within this country, nor should it be on an international scale. Moreover, as per above, our attack on Iraq cannot be 'revenge' given the lack of ties between 9/11 and Iraq as well as the fact that the civilian iraqi deaths are around 3 times the number of dead from 9/11 not to mention the afghan toll. Counted thousands were killed in the process of removing that dictator.

Also note that there is very little questioning of the action taken against afghanistan and consider why that might be.

- Liberals scream and cry over a war that is not only in OUR best interests but also in the IRAQI's best interest

Whether it was in our best interests is opinion. I agree that when things settle down it will most likely prove to have been in the best interests of those iraqi's who remain alive through the process.

- Iraq will be a strategic base for launching future operations against terrorists and keeping influence right in the heart of the middle east

This is most likely one of the actual reasons for the war.

- Liberals hold candlelight vigils for those awaiting execution in the name of justice yet support mass murder of the unborn daily

this is something of a tangent to the discussion, but anti liberals (none too sure that the tag of conservative or republican even fits the group I'm describing) do just the opposite, supporting the killing of living, breathing individuals thus removing any chance of redemption while protesting what in many cases is simply the removal of an unformed mass of tissue. But this thread is not the place for a discussion of this issue, if it is to be continued it should be in a thread of it's own.

- It is a hypocritical arguement to promote peace and deny the 3,000 on 9/11.

Deny them what or how, exactly? Is peace a bad goal somehow?

- If our country were to be taken over by Islamic militancy (far-fetched) those on the left would most likely be executed for their views rather than traditional conservatives.

I suppose that's true enough, but you do realize you are saying that traditional conservatives are more like islamic militants than liberals are, right?

Shame on you for forgetting the 3,000. It's time to take the offensive on this issue.

Offensive is right, I'd like to say something to you and the horse you rode in on after reading your post. I'VE not forgotten the 3000, and I'VE not tried to use them to bolster support for a questionable war. You might want to consider that there are real people behind the posts on this board whom you have NO authority to impugn the honor of with such crass statements.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
You keep saying that like its true. nope, you're wrong.

Jones, seriously, are you retarded?

NO ONE EVER SAID IRAQ WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT. I defy you to find one source stating the administration said that. Just ONE, Jones, not too hard!!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
but that still left 70% of america under the impression that saddam was directly related to 9/11...

That's a bit misleading. Let's put that into perspective. A poll of approximately .000000001% of the population stated that 7 in 10 Americans thought Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

I'm quite confident that MOST Americans think otherwise.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Aquarian

I'VE not forgotten the 3000, and I'VE not tried to use them to bolster support for a questionable war. You might want to consider that there are real people behind the posts on this board whom you have NO authority to impugn the honor of with such crass statements.

The only thing questionable I see about the liberation of the Iraqi people is why did we wait so long???? 12 years of playing games...how many lives WOULD have been saved if we went in sooner???? Jim, you are right...most Americans think otherwise.. and while peace is THE goal....It is people like saddam and OBL and a host of other scambags that make peace hard to come too. to try and have peace without arms and armys would be like trying to stop a runaway mac truck by standing in front of it.

 

[jones]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Jones, seriously, are you retarded?

NO ONE EVER SAID IRAQ WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT. I defy you to find one source stating the administration said that. Just ONE, Jones, not too hard!!

Are YOU retarded? Must not, you're spinning the shit out this question. I would like to hear what you said if someone asked why we need to go into iraq now. could see it now.


Lets see what powell says...

Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/disarm/violations.htm

Should we have waited longer then? You're so freaking predictable, YOU WANT IT WORD FOR WORD spelled out "imminent"?

 

[jimnyc]

Are YOU retarded? Must not, you're spinning the shit out this question. I would like to hear what you said if someone asked why we need to go into iraq now. could see it now.

What question? I simply stated that no one in the Bush administration ever said Iraq was an imminent threat. You disagreed as usual but fail to produce one single thing to refute the claim I have made. As far as reasons for going into Iraq, this has been discussed at length here time and time again. Read resolutions 1441 and 687 and read FACTS for once.

Lets see what powell says...

"Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world."

And? What's your point? He made a statement based on the intelligence gatherings. Based on that he felt it best to remove a possible threat. Good job, Powell!!

Should we have waited longer then? You're so freaking predictable, YOU WANT IT WORD FOR WORD spelled out "imminent"?

No waiting should have been done. In fact, I would have liked for them to go in even earlier.

And not word for word, just 2 words - imminent threat. You know, the 2 words you have claimed dozens of times that Bush supposedly said, but yet fail to produce anything to backup your inane assertions.

You're lost, Jones, go buy a map.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jones
Should we have waited longer then? You're so freaking predictable, YOU WANT IT WORD FOR WORD spelled out "imminent"? [/B]

Well, if you on the Left are going to make the charge that Bush called Iraq an imminent threat, then you should be able to produce the relevant quote. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

 

[jones]

SPIN SPIN SPIN, knew you could do it.

Only worked on yourself though!!!