The President's Supporters are POOF, going away

[Gunny]

Dang that darn President Bush. I knew he was responsible for my hangnail.

He was just killing time between Katrina and Wilma.

 

[Gem]

Mariner Wrote:

supporters explain the decline in Bush's approval ratings from 90% to the mid-30's, and the fall in Cheney's to 26%? Is it all someone else's fault, or might these folk have gotten something wrong? Even at his most shameful moments, Clinton's approval ratings didn't fall much below 50%, and they ended at 66%, higher than when they started. If you look at the last 100 years, Bush's fall is the most dramatic of any president. Can he really have done nothing to deserve this?

Clinton and his friends in the media did a few things Bush has not done:

- They, both Clinton and the media, touted his wonderful economy every day (the economy now is STRONGER than it was during the Clinton years...but you would never guess that by watching the news or reading a paper...or for that matter, listening to Bush)

- The media was kind to Clinton, seperating his poll into two categories, personal and political. The seperating alone told people all they needed to know: We are seperating personal and political because YOU should...Clinton might be a rapist, a lech, a liar, an adulterer...but thats his PERSONAL life...POLITICALLY he is leading a strong economy...and thats all that should matter to you

- The Republicans were not smart enough to jump on the "Clinton Lied, Troops Died," mantra for Kosovo and/or Somalia...and since 9/11 had not yet happened...the American public were disinterested in the fact that Islamic fundamentalists were killing ever increasing numbers of Americans and others...touting the US's habit of running away as a main reason why attacking us at home would be a good idea.

- Clinton spoke well on camera...and unfortunately, most Americans are too busy and/or too lazy to look beyond that.

- The media sold the idea that Clinton's troubles and Clinton's impeachment were about a blowjob to the Democratic elite and to Hollywood. Hollywood made jokes about it...mocking people who disliked Clinton as prudes who disliked sex...they ignored what the issue really was...that the President of the United States, while under investigation for sexual crimes against another woman, lied under oath about another woman, had her followed, harrassed, detained illegally, pressured to bear false witness...and a bunch of other crimes...but no, according to Bill Maher and Madonna...it was just about a bj.


Bush and his crew on the other hand:

- Have not had the luxury of having the MSM, the Democratic elite, or Hollywood on their side. To the contrary, all three have been actively working either obviously against the administration or at the very least...have been deliberately not reporting good stories while harping on the bad.

- Have had to deal with the fact that Bush is a deplorable public speaker. When he is speaking one-on-one, or to a small crowd, he often is reported as being heartfelt, sincere, and amazingly well-spoken...but when addressing the nation he comes across as stiff, stupid, and often, embarrassing. It has nothing to do with whether or not he is doing a good job, or whether or not he is a good President...but the opposing powers that be really want you to believe that it does (and many have bought their tale).


Does it sound like I am giving a complete pass to the Bush Administration? Because I am not. They have also:

- Not been willing to trust the American people enough (or perhaps...they have not trusted the MSM to relay the message accurately) to tell them the truth about Iraq...for instance that the Dueffler Report stated that it was more obvious after the inspections than ever before that removing Saddam was necessary and that Iraq pre-war was a danger to the US...that there were thousands and thousands of documents found in Iraq about the nations WMD. And that there are only two explanantions for them 1) They are there because Saddam had and was planning on getting more WMD or 2) He fraudulently made thousands of documents to fool us so when we invaded and found them we would think he had WMD...only one of these makes sense.

If Bush would trust the American people more, I think he would be more popular

- The U.S. did not plan for the post-war period effectively. This was, in part, because the war started several weeks early due to intel on where Saddam might be hiding and also, quite plainly, due to a failure on the part of the Pentagon.

- The Bush Administration has allowed the Democrats to call the President a liar and a murdered....and has allowed them to call Republicans thugs and bullies when the Republicans call the Democrats out on their inane and dangerous statements. By not standing up immediately to the asinine statements made by high-ranking Dems, Bush has given them power and credibility which they have proved conclusively they do not deserve.



I could go on. But the simple truth is that Bush does not deserve his low approval rating...yet he has done much to contribute to the low poll numbers...not as much as the MSM and Democrats, but he has helped them rather than himself. Clinton on the other hand, enjoyed poll numbers that were much higher than he deserved....but he helped himself...and the MSM helped him.

 

[Gunny]

Mariner Wrote:


Clinton and his friends in the media did a few things Bush has not done:

- They, both Clinton and the media, touted his wonderful economy every day (the economy now is STRONGER than it was during the Clinton years...but you would never guess that by watching the news or reading a paper...or for that matter, listening to Bush)

- The media was kind to Clinton, seperating his poll into two categories, personal and political. The seperating alone told people all they needed to know: We are seperating personal and political because YOU should...Clinton might be a rapist, a lech, a liar, an adulterer...but thats his PERSONAL life...POLITICALLY he is leading a strong economy...and thats all that should matter to you

- The Republicans were not smart enough to jump on the "Clinton Lied, Troops Died," mantra for Kosovo and/or Somalia...and since 9/11 had not yet happened...the American public were disinterested in the fact that Islamic fundamentalists were killing ever increasing numbers of Americans and others...touting the US's habit of running away as a main reason why attacking us at home would be a good idea.

- Clinton spoke well on camera...and unfortunately, most Americans are too busy and/or too lazy to look beyond that.

- The media sold the idea that Clinton's troubles and Clinton's impeachment were about a blowjob to the Democratic elite and to Hollywood. Hollywood made jokes about it...mocking people who disliked Clinton as prudes who disliked sex...they ignored what the issue really was...that the President of the United States, while under investigation for sexual crimes against another woman, lied under oath about another woman, had her followed, harrassed, detained illegally, pressured to bear false witness...and a bunch of other crimes...but no, according to Bill Maher and Madonna...it was just about a bj.


Bush and his crew on the other hand:

- Have not had the luxury of having the MSM, the Democratic elite, or Hollywood on their side. To the contrary, all three have been actively working either obviously against the administration or at the very least...have been deliberately not reporting good stories while harping on the bad.

- Have had to deal with the fact that Bush is a deplorable public speaker. When he is speaking one-on-one, or to a small crowd, he often is reported as being heartfelt, sincere, and amazingly well-spoken...but when addressing the nation he comes across as stiff, stupid, and often, embarrassing. It has nothing to do with whether or not he is doing a good job, or whether or not he is a good President...but the opposing powers that be really want you to believe that it does (and many have bought their tale).


Does it sound like I am giving a complete pass to the Bush Administration? Because I am not. They have also:

- Not been willing to trust the American people enough (or perhaps...they have not trusted the MSM to relay the message accurately) to tell them the truth about Iraq...for instance that the Dueffler Report stated that it was more obvious after the inspections than ever before that removing Saddam was necessary and that Iraq pre-war was a danger to the US...that there were thousands and thousands of documents found in Iraq about the nations WMD. And that there are only two explanantions for them 1) They are there because Saddam had and was planning on getting more WMD or 2) He fraudulently made thousands of documents to fool us so when we invaded and found them we would think he had WMD...only one of these makes sense.

If Bush would trust the American people more, I think he would be more popular

- The U.S. did not plan for the post-war period effectively. This was, in part, because the war started several weeks early due to intel on where Saddam might be hiding and also, quite plainly, due to a failure on the part of the Pentagon.

- The Bush Administration has allowed the Democrats to call the President a liar and a murdered....and has allowed them to call Republicans thugs and bullies when the Republicans call the Democrats out on their inane and dangerous statements. By not standing up immediately to the asinine statements made by high-ranking Dems, Bush has given them power and credibility which they have proved conclusively they do not deserve.


I could go on. But the simple truth is that Bush does not deserve his low approval rating...yet he has done much to contribute to the low poll numbers...not as much as the MSM and Democrats, but he has helped them rather than himself. Clinton on the other hand, enjoyed poll numbers that were much higher than he deserved....but he helped himself...and the MSM helped him.

Damn that's good.

 

[musicman]

Clinton wasn't even held accountable for a crime he was proven guilty of.

So is that.

 

[kurtsprincess]

supporters explain the decline in Bush's approval ratings from 90% to the mid-30's, and the fall in Cheney's to 26%? Is it all someone else's fault, or might these folk have gotten something wrong? Even at his most shameful moments, Clinton's approval ratings didn't fall much below 50%, and they ended at 66%, higher than when they started. If you look at the last 100 years, Bush's fall is the most dramatic of any president. Can he really have done nothing to deserve this?

Mariner.

I will agree that he did something!!

He pissed off the MSM, liberals, George Soros and his partner, Peter whatshisname, by winning the election.

People are lazy and the majority are still depending on the "Cronkite" syndrome..........not researching the facts and trusting that the media is constrained by ethical standards. If the anchor says it, it must be true!!! What a crock!

And, who really knows where the pollsters' money comes from.

If the media is no longer unbiased, how can anyone think the polling companies are unbiased? Go figure.

I wouldn't put too much faith in the approval ratings.........remember the exit polls?

 

[Psychoblues]

This is just too funny to ignore. I am almost equally amused in the rest of your post. You're still wearing those stripes and doing your best to justify your existence, aren't you, gunnyl?

When it comes to the President and public approval, words speak louder than actions.

Psychoblues

 

[insein]

This is just too funny to ignore. I am almost equally amused in the rest of your post. You're still wearing those stripes and doing your best to justify your existence, aren't you, gunnyl?



Psychoblues

Thats funny i couldve swore you were doing the same thing.

 

[Gunny]

This is just too funny to ignore. I am almost equally amused in the rest of your post. You're still wearing those stripes and doing your best to justify your existence, aren't you, gunnyl?



Psychoblues

Still bringing that plastic knife to a gunfight, eh?

My existence justifies itself. I am a productive member of and proponent of the society in which I live unlike your fag-loving, Islamofascist, America-hating self.

DO everyone a favor and drop dead, huh?

 

[Annie]

Thats funny i couldve swore you were doing the same thing.

Nah, not the same thing at all. Gunny is proud of his service, but for some reason, (I'm thinking honesty), doesn't claim to have served in all US wars in the last half of the twentieth century, right through Desert Storm. Psycho must hold the record of the longest serving anti-military person ever! Then again, it could all be made up. Ya think? I'm figuring he must be at least 78-83. NOT!

 

[Gunny]

Nah, not the same thing at all. Gunny is proud of his service, but for some reason, (I'm thinking honesty), doesn't claim to have served in all US wars in the last half of the twentieth century, right through Desert Storm. Psycho must hold the record of the longest serving anti-military person ever! Then again, it could all be made up. Ya think? I'm figuring he must be at least 78-83. NOT!

Damned-straight I am proud to be a Marine. My only regret is that I can't do it again. However, while it is part of who I am, it does not define who and what I am.

Psycho is just a petty little player hater.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

supporters explain the decline in Bush's approval ratings from 90% to the mid-30's, and the fall in Cheney's to 26%? Is it all someone else's fault, or might these folk have gotten something wrong? Even at his most shameful moments, Clinton's approval ratings didn't fall much below 50%, and they ended at 66%, higher than when they started. If you look at the last 100 years, Bush's fall is the most dramatic of any president. Can he really have done nothing to deserve this?

Mariner.

Hate to tell you this, but Clintons approval rating dipped well below 50%

"Bush's lowest approval rating to date was a 35-percent mark in a CBS News poll from October 30-November 1 (with a margin of error of +/-3 percent). According to the polling archive of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Reagan's lowest approval rating was also 35 percent, in a Gallup Poll from January 28-31, 1983. The Roper Center lists Clinton's low at a 36 percent, according to a Yank/Time/CNN Poll from May 26-27, 1993."

OUCH!, THose damn facts again....

Try telling the truth occasionally.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Yea you forgot the part where said country was known as Saddam Hussein land. It wasnt a country, it was a man. The iraqi people had no say in the affair. A country has potential towards freedom. A man, especially one who has shown no remorse for killing his own people, has the potential towards disaster.

Are we going to oust every single dictatorial regime from power, all over the world? Let's start with China, who actually has nukes. Then we can move on to Russia, a nation that is not a shining example of freedom, a nation that has questionable control over it's supply of nukes as well. Or how about Mommar Khadaffi or the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who actually have supported terrorists? Oh wait, we actually support them. We're perfectly willing to aid repressive regimes as long as they do our bidding.

http://www.mises.org/story/818

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Yeah. You left out any sort of factual basis for your ridiculous assertions.

You forgot the fact that intelligence community for the entire world found Saddam in breach and violation of international law for his weapons programs
(A)

You forgot the fact that in a post 911 world we cant simply wait around while there are people trying to destroy our freedom and civilization
(B)

You forgot the fact that the only reason the Europeans had for not supporting the war is the fact that they were profitting off Saddam's oppression by violating the trade sanctions against them.
(C)

You forgot that Saddam has a history of supporting terrorists including Al Queda in the past.
(D)

You forgot that after 911 we said we would take out any regime that supports terrorism.
(E)

You forgot that it is established that Saddam had weapons programs and had plans to resume those programs the second the previously mentioned corrupt European and UN leaders would have dropped the sanctions.
(F)

You forgot that if the war was really all about oil, President Bush could have merely had the sanctions dropped and we could have purchased all the oil we wanted from Saddam. I have no doubt that he would have been willing to sell us oil for the money to build weapons he wants to use to destroy us. That way we could have saved lives in the short run, made that dictator rich and given him power to destroy major american cities. Yes thats a much better alternative to liberating Iraq and putting that douche on trial.

You forgot that when we are talking about nuclear weapons and WMDs, if we wait till the threat is imminent, then its too late. Let's think about this rationally. Lose a few lives taking out tryants now and preventing them from obtaining such weapons vs. wait till they strap a nuclear devise to some terrirost and set it off in New York or DC. Very tough choice here.
(G)

You forgot that the President has an obligation to protect the American people. Even those too stupid that they care more about regaining their political power than defending their lives.
(H)

A) Then where are the weapons?

B) So the solution to people who supposedly hate freedom is...to cram "freedom" right up their asses? They hate us because of our bullying, meddling, leviathan State.

C) Sanctions never work, except to impoverish the people and give the dictator credibility. Madeline Albright flatly admitted that they created miserable conditions for the people of Iraq, and that they were responsible for the deaths of thousands. Incidentally, this is also one of the reasons given by Al-Quaeda for 9/11.

D) No, he didn't.

E) Except Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. who we currently support.

F) Pakistan has a nuke program, and fights terrorists only in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge sort of way. Why aren't we going after them?

G) The war wasn't about oil. It may have been about political control of the oil, although I'm not even sure about that. I tend to think that our ever-growing government needs a new boogeyman to justify ever-growing budgets. That, plus doing Israel's bidding.

H) The american government does a piss poor job of protecting the american people. It is interested in increasing it's own power. If it were interested in keeping us safe, it wouldn't go interfering in the affairs of other countries, but instead would follow George Washington's advice of "peaceful relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none". There was a time, not too long ago, when the arab world couldn't care less about the United States, but that changed. Read the article I posted above.

 

[no1tovote4]

Are we going to oust every single dictatorial regime from power, all over the world? Let's start with China, who actually has nukes. Or how about Mommar Khadaffi or the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who actually have supported terrorists? Oh wait, we actually support them. We're perfectly willing to aid repressive regimes as long as they do our bidding.

http://www.mises.org/story/818

At this point our bidding is to:

1. Not support terrorism...
2. Fight against terrorism...
3. Be vocal in a fight against terrorism...
4. Not build nuclear weapons (this is for the ones that don't already have them ie. China, Pakistan, India)...

Another would be that, other than open trade, we do not support China in any political or military way at all. They are in opposition to us politically, as evidenced by the PR battles we are constantly fighting over Taiwan and human rights in China. The support of the US in other nations is not complete blank cheques and it does not stop the US government for calling for new rights for women and for the populace in Saudi Arabia, India, or in Pakistan.

So long as they do our bidding I can't see why we wouldn't give such support, as it does open a dialogue that otherwise would be non-existant and gives a better chance at actual change in those places. Our fight is against terrorism, not repressive regimes per se, while we work to diplomatically resolve some issues, issues regarding our national security directly call for more direct action.

The fear in Iraq was that they would work to get nukes, then give them to terrorists. Saddam did support terrorism as evidenced by those pictures of Saddam and Arafat with big lotto-style checks giving photo ops with the families of the suicide murderers. That he was willing to pay them so directly showed an outside chance of an idea (I hope you can sense the sarcasm here) that he might support them with other more discreet undertakings as well. Further evidence could found within Iraq one of the first things found was the fuselage, just outside of Baghdad, where terrorist training was undertaken to teach people how to hijack airplanes.

That they weren't currently supporting al Qaeda doesn't mean that they weren't supporting terrorism at all and it didn't take us any further than the television to find evidence of his support of terrorism, and the official nature of that support was disquieting to say the least.

It is indisputable that he supported terrorism in Israel, that many were paid thousands of dollars for their attacks on innocents. That he had no clear-cut connections to al Qaeda is little comfort nor does it negate direct evidence of support of terrorism. (Such as his smiling face as he handed over another $25,000 check to the, likely greiving but unable to show it, families of suicide murderers.)

That people are willing to overlook such ties to terrorism because they can say that there is no conclusive evidence of any support of al Qaeda shows an underlying issue of ignorance of the size of the problem. Al Qaeda may be one of the larger groups, but it certainly isn't the only one. That many cannot see past al Qaeda shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue we fight today.

The lack of a good grip on the underlying islamofascism, that it can actually be beyond al Qaeda where we can find enemies, that other groups are just as sinister and just as willing to attack the US if they can, such as Hamas (who, by the way, is the terrorist portion of the PLO that was headed at the time of the big cheques by none other than Arafat who was seen in the vicinity of those fat cheques from Saddam with matching smiles and pride in the murders) will be the doom of the US. We must keep pointing out these simple ideas to those who cannot understand, this is just the first step, if we are unwilling to win in Iraq then we must be willing to lose innocents at home on a large basis. There is no other option.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

There is no way Saddam would hand off his hard-earned nukes to a bunch of loose-cannon terrorists. Dictators like him are control freaks, and letting a nuke go off in a major american city would mean a retaliation that hasn't been seen in human history. He's a ruthless killer, but he's not insane, and he's not suicidal.

What he would do with the nukes is keep them as deterrence against invasion, and as a bargaining chip against Israel. That's probably the real reason we're over there.

We also give money to the palestinians, btw. Something like $800 billion a year, IIRC.

 

[no1tovote4]

There is no way Saddam would hand off his hard-earned nukes to a bunch of loose-cannon terrorists. Dictators like him are control freaks, and letting a nuke go off in a major american city would mean a retaliation that hasn't been seen in human history. He's a ruthless killer, but he's not insane, and he's not suicidal.

What he would do with the nukes is keep them as deterrence against invasion, and as a bargaining chip against Israel. That's probably the real reason we're over there.

We also give money to the palestinians, btw. Something like $800 billion a year, IIRC.

He wouldn't have to give them nukes, nor do I think he would, simple castoff material would be enough and as long as Iran and Pakistan had nukes it would have been difficult to track back to Iraq. Now that Pakistan is in support of the US directly, Iran an N. Korea would be the only nations that might give such materials to terrorists. Saddam could easily have let 'lax' security be the cause that terrorists got their hands on such material. He also had already shown a proclivity for attacks on the US soil in his attempt to assisante George HW Bush.

We give money to the new democratically elected government of Palestine, in the millions not billions, not to Hamas or as incentive for more suicide murderers. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then there never will be hope for you to become of member of the diplomatic corp of the US.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

At this point our bidding is to:

1. Not support terrorism...
2. Fight against terrorism...
3. Be vocal in a fight against terrorism...
4. Not build nuclear weapons (this is for the ones that don't already have them ie. China, Pakistan, India)...

Another would be that, other than open trade, we do not support China in any political or military way at all. They are in opposition to us politically, as evidenced by the PR battles we are constantly fighting over Taiwan and human rights in China. The support of the US in other nations is not complete blank cheques and it does not stop the US government for calling for new rights for women and for the populace in Saudi Arabia, India, or in Pakistan.

So long as they do our bidding I can't see why we wouldn't give such support, as it does open a dialogue that otherwise would be non-existant and gives a better chance at actual change in those places. Our fight is against terrorism, not repressive regimes per se, while we work to diplomatically resolve some issues, issues regarding our national security directly call for more direct action.

.

ITs funny how these guys complain how Bush has ruined our world wide friendships and relations. Then they say if we are gonna attack Saddam, we should also attack China, Sudan, Russia, etc, etc.

Now, how the heck are we gonna improve relations with those countries if we attack them?

Another interesting thing is the way Dems figure out their PR strategy to make Bush look bad. Take Hillary for example. She realized she needed to go towards the center if she wants to win the presidency. So she is repackaging herself. While she supported the ouster of saddam (as did the Clinton adminstration, whose official policy in '98 became seeking regime change in Iraq) she has now taken the stance that we need to move towards a more multi national force and multinational UN overseeing of elections and transistion of power.

Yet, now get this, in Afghanastan, where there was a broader coalition than we had in Iraq, the troop numbers by NATO are not being met by them. THEY DONT HAVE ENOUGH TO SEND To Aghanastan. So, how could they help us in Iraq?

Its all a bunch of lies, smoke and mirrors for the liberals.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There is no way Saddam would hand off his hard-earned nukes to a bunch of loose-cannon terrorists. Dictators like him are control freaks, and letting a nuke go off in a major american city would mean a retaliation that hasn't been seen in human history. He's a ruthless killer, but he's not insane, and he's not suicidal.

What he would do with the nukes is keep them as deterrence against invasion, and as a bargaining chip against Israel. That's probably the real reason we're over there.

We also give money to the palestinians, btw. Something like $800 billion a year, IIRC.

By the way, the weapons are probably in Syria.

lAnd besides, the BURDEN Of PROOF was upon saddam to PROVE he destroyed them. Without such proof, we were justified for invading.

Saddam isnt insane? Uh, you think he didnt have WMD's? Ok, lets assume he didnt. Then why didnt he just allow totally unfettered inspections and let us see that he had none. Then, guess what, instead of living in a dirt hole a few months later, and now being in prison and facing a death sentence, he would still be the powerful dictator and have all the luxuries of life, his sons would still be alive, etc, etc, etc. THAT ISNT INSANE? or, maybe he did have the WMD's,,,I dont think you can have it both ways...

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

ITs funny how these guys complain how Bush has ruined our world wide friendships and relations. Then they say if we are gonna attack Saddam, we should also attack China, Sudan, Russia, etc, etc.

Now, how the heck are we gonna improve relations with those countries if we attack them?

Uhhh...exactly. You don't get people in any country to love you by attacking them. And it doesn't really matter what your reason for attacking is.

Imagine if the Chinese army invaded the US in 1993, to liberate us from Clinton and the democratic congress. Then they absolished the entire income tax system, social security, and the rest of Washington's bloated bureaucracy. Despite those wonderful things, there would be a lot of angry americans--conservatives included--taking pot shots at the Chinese army.

The question stands: If we are doing this to topple evil dictators, then why aren't we invading 2/3 of the world? The simple truth is, Saddam's evil has 0.000% to do with why we attacked. Saying that the war was about toppling a dictator because he was evil is a cheap tactic designed to give an aura of morality to the war.

By the way, the weapons are probably in Syria.

lAnd besides, the BURDEN Of PROOF was upon saddam to PROVE he destroyed them. Without such proof, we were justified for invading.

Saddam isnt insane? Uh, you think he didnt have WMD's? Ok, lets assume he didnt. Then why didnt he just allow totally unfettered inspections and let us see that he had none. Then, guess what, instead of living in a dirt hole a few months later, and now being in prison and facing a death sentence, he would still be the powerful dictator and have all the luxuries of life, his sons would still be alive, etc, etc, etc. THAT ISNT INSANE? or, maybe he did have the WMD's,,,I dont think you can have it both ways...

Didn't we have uncontested control of Iraq's airspace before the war? I find it hard to believe that they would plan an invasion of Iraq without watching the Syrian border closely. And I really doubt a scenario like this playing out:

Saddam: Hey, I've got these nukes, but I gotta get rid of them.
Syria: Cool, we can threaten Israel now! Uhh...why are you looking to unload them?
Saddam: Well, I'm about to be invaded by the mightiest superpower in the history of the world, on account of my nukes.
Syria: Oh, well then! It shouldn't be any problem if we take them, since we're such good buddies with the US!

How can he PROOVE that he destroyed his nukes if he never had them in the first place? And nukes are the only WMD's that matter, chemical and bio weapons can be made by anyone with basic chemicals. Timothy McVeigh didn't have any trouble making his own.

If you want to read about the details of the inspectors and the fraudulent basis for the war, start with the columns of Jude Wanniski. If he's a liberal, then I am Mickey Mouse.

And no, Saddam wasn't insane. He's not a raving lunatic. Cold-blooded and sadistic? Yes. Ravenously hungry for power, with no conscience to stop him? Yes. But not insane.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Uhhh...exactly. You don't get people in any country to love you by attacking them. And it doesn't really matter what your reason for attacking is.

Imagine if the Chinese army invaded the US in 1993, to liberate us from Clinton and the democratic congress. Then they absolished the entire income tax system, social security, and the rest of Washington's bloated bureaucracy. Despite those wonderful things, there would be a lot of angry americans--conservatives included--taking pot shots at the Chinese army.

The question stands: If we are doing this to topple evil dictators, then why aren't we invading 2/3 of the world? The simple truth is, Saddam's evil has 0.000% to do with why we attacked. Saying that the war was about toppling a dictator because he was evil is a cheap tactic designed to give an aura of morality to the war.



Didn't we have uncontested control of Iraq's airspace before the war? I find it hard to believe that they would plan an invasion of Iraq without watching the Syrian border closely. And I really doubt a scenario like this playing out:

Saddam: Hey, I've got these nukes, but I gotta get rid of them.
Syria: Cool, we can threaten Israel now! Uhh...why are you looking to unload them?
Saddam: Well, I'm about to be invaded by the mightiest superpower in the history of the world, on account of my nukes.
Syria: Oh, well then! It shouldn't be any problem if we take them, since we're such good buddies with the US!

How can he PROOVE that he destroyed his nukes if he never had them in the first place? And nukes are the only WMD's that matter, chemical and bio weapons can be made by anyone with basic chemicals. Timothy McVeigh didn't have any trouble making his own.

If you want to read about the details of the inspectors and the fraudulent basis for the war, start with the columns of Jude Wanniski. If he's a liberal, then I am Mickey Mouse.

And no, Saddam wasn't insane. He's not a raving lunatic. Cold-blooded and sadistic? Yes. Ravenously hungry for power, with no conscience to stop him? Yes. But not insane.

Uh, dude, how about responding to the points I made about the differences with Iraq and the other countries you want to invade.

How about responding to the fact that someone who is ravenously hungry for power would go along with the UN mandates if the only other option was being ousted, ESPECIALLY if he didnt have any WMD's. ONLLY a lunatic would fight over something he doesnt have.

And we didnt attack the Iraqi people, we attacked saddam and his army, they DID NOT REPRESENT the IRaqi people.
Look at afghanastan, yes those people are very, very happy we went in and liberated them

same with the philippines, we liberated them twice. THE ITALIANS considered us heros in WWll, but those countries were ruled with iron fist dictators, same as IRaq, but UNLIKE china, russia, etc. etc.

You inability to see the difference makes me suspect you may be as crazy as saddam