All the Poker Chips...

[montyfowler]

I voted for George W. Bush in the last election for one reason: he is an honest man. After 8 years of lies and spin from Clinton and his cronies, the single most important qualification for the President, in my mind, was personal integrity. Bush told us repeatedly how he would never lie to us like that other man did. He told us how he would restore honor and dignity to the office of the President. And I believed him.

When 9/11 happened and Bush told us that Al Queda did it and that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind, I believed him. When he told us that we had to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan because they supported bin Laden and harbored his murderous minions, I believed him. When he told us that terrorists had infiltrated our country and in order to ferret them out we would need to trade some of our personal liberty, I believed him. When he told us that the collective intelligence of the Western world agrees that Iraq had WMD and would use them against us or sell them to terrorists, I believed him. When he told us that these threats were imminent and we had to go to war with Iraq to prevent greater harm to our country, I believed him.

No we find ourselves occupying Iraq but our justification has vanished along with 500+ of our troops and thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Where are the WMD? Where?! How is it that the greatest intelligence agencies in the world were 100% wrong in their analysis?

Does this make the outcome of the war wrong or unjust? No, of course not. All but the most radical among us would agree that removing Saddam Hussien from power was a victory for the Iraqi people and improved the security of the entire world. But by what means are we willing to protect our national interests? Some would say by any means necessary. But is it worth trading the moral authority of the United States by waging a war, that may in the final analysis, turn out to be illegal by the standards of international law. (Which, by the way, we were the primary architects of acting through the UN). What destination will this new and dangerous doctrine of preemption lead us to?

Time will tell. So will our response to the next act of terror against the U.S. And be assured...it will happen again. Tom Ridge said so. Better grab you duct tape and solar powered radio.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
I voted for George W. Bush in the last election for one reason: he is an honest man. After 8 years of lies and spin from Clinton and his cronies, the single most important qualification for the President, in my mind, was personal integrity. Bush told us repeatedly how he would never lie to us like that other man did. He told us how he would restore honor and dignity to the office of the President. And I believed him.

When 9/11 happened and Bush told us that Al Queda did it and that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind, I believed him. When he told us that we had to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan because they supported bin Laden and harbored his murderous minions, I believed him. When he told us that terrorists had infiltrated our country and in order to ferret them out we would need to trade some of our personal liberty, I believed him. When he told us that the collective intelligence of the Western world agrees that Iraq had WMD and would use them against us or sell them to terrorists, I believed him. When he told us that these threats were imminent and we had to go to war with Iraq to prevent greater harm to our country, I believed him.

No we find ourselves occupying Iraq but our justification has vanished along with 500+ of our troops and thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Where are the WMD? Where?! How is it that the greatest intelligence agencies in the world were 100% wrong in their analysis?

Does this make the outcome of the war wrong or unjust? No, of course not. All but the most radical among us would agree that removing Saddam Hussien from power was a victory for the Iraqi people and improved the security of the entire world. But by what means are we willing to protect our national interests? Some would say by any means necessary. But is it worth trading the moral authority of the United States by waging a war, that may in the final analysis, turn out to be illegal by the standards of international law. (Which, by the way, we were the primary architects of acting through the UN). What destination will this new and dangerous doctrine of preemption lead us to?

Time will tell. So will our response to the next act of terror against the U.S. And be assured...it will happen again. Tom Ridge said so. Better grab you duct tape and solar powered radio.

Bush said we needed to act BEFORE attack BECAME imminent. You know it. Quit lying. Saddam violated 14 or so un resolutions. They declared serious consequences for saddam. But when it came time to act, their anti-america stripes came out. Saying this is a preemptive action is an act of brazen intellectual dishonesty. What about enforcing U.N. resolutions? I know, I know. "what about the resolutions against Israel?"

 

[montyfowler]

I can tell you and I are going to be good friends, rtwngAvngr.

First of all, I am a conservative..no kidding. As such, I am entitled, nay, required to question the policies and actions of my government, even when it is controlled by those that claim to be of my party.

Let's clear something up. The UN resolutions and their enforcement WAS NOT the premise under which GW took us to war with Iraq. Everyone in the administration, including the fair prince Colin Powell, got in front of the cameras and told us that there were INDEED WMD in Iraq, and that fact posed an imminent danger to the US and our allies. This is not my opinion, it is recent history...look it up.

I have no quarrel with the administration going to war because of their above mentioned perceptions. In fact, I would have had no problem with GW saying he wanted to remove Saddam because he tried to have GW's daddy whacked! At least that would have been 100% true.

But instead, the Whitehouse gave us a clear reason to go to war that turned out to be wrong. They were wrong...we were wrong. Why can't we admit that?

Sure the CIA, NSA, DIA, MI-7, Interpol, etc. got it wrong and fed the bad info to the Prez. But as Harry Truman so rightly reminded all future presidents, "The buck stops here." GW should take all the credit for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and the blame for doing it under false pretenses. We can't, as a party, hide from this simple fact.

But more importantly we must now complete the task of building a free and secure Iraq, or else we risk everything. Our status in the world as the standard-bearer for Democracy, our moral authority in the face of tyranny, and our history of being a peaceful nation, not a war monger.

These are the stakes in this next election. Do I think GW is still the best man for the job? Absolutely. Is he the man I thought he was when I voted for him. The jury is still out.

 

[freeandfun1]

Your ignoring the facts belies your statement:

First of all, I am a conservative..no kidding

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
I can tell you and I are going to be good friends, rtwngAvngr.

First of all, I am a conservative..no kidding. As such, I am entitled, nay, required to question the policies and actions of my government, even when it is controlled by those that claim to be of my party.

Let's clear something up. The UN resolutions and their enforcement WAS NOT the premise under which GW took us to war with Iraq.

It was one of the many reasons given. I take into consideration more than just what George Bush said. Limiting the argument specifically to what george bush focused on is partisan in nature. can't you think outside of what you're explicitly told? Let me ask you this: George Bush's honesty aside, do you think the right action was taken. are you in the assinine "It was the right actions for the wrong reasons" camp?? At least bush took the right actions. A dem would have considered the war on terror over after the last corpse hit the pavement from the WTC.

Everyone in the administration, including the fair prince Colin Powell, got in front of the cameras and told us that there were INDEED WMD in Iraq, and that fact posed an imminent danger to the US and our allies. This is not my opinion, it is recent history...look it up.

Most Dems signed on based on the same evidence. Clinton and most other world leaders believed he had them. yes hindsight is 20/20. That's all your argument amount to.

I have no quarrel with the administration going to war because of their above mentioned perceptions. In fact, I would have had no problem with GW saying he wanted to remove Saddam because he tried to have GW's daddy whacked! At least that would have been 100% true.

But instead, the Whitehouse gave us a clear reason to go to war that turned out to be wrong. They were wrong...we were wrong. Why can't we admit that?

People have admitted it. The partisanship of the Dems shows through in saying that this mistake rises to the level or making the president unworthy of reelection. If Bush has just cited some different reasons would you be all better inside?

Sure the CIA, NSA, DIA, MI-7, Interpol, etc. got it wrong and fed the bad info to the Prez. But as Harry Truman so rightly reminded all future presidents, "The buck stops here." GW should take all the credit for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and the blame for doing it under false pretenses. We can't, as a party, hide from this simple fact.

Your twisting again. You make a mistake sound like an intentional lie.

But more importantly we must now complete the task of building a free and secure Iraq, or else we risk everything. Our status in the world as the standard-bearer for Democracy, our moral authority in the face of tyranny, and our history of being a peaceful nation, not a war monger.

Any intellectually honest person would admit the war was justified just for violation of un mandates alone.

These are the stakes in this next election. Do I think GW is still the best man for the job? Absolutely. Is he the man I thought he was when I voted for him. The jury is still out.

I don't believe for one second you're a conservative. You're spinning too much. Nice try though.

 

[montyfowler]

I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse, or what.

GW is worthy or reelection simply because he and his administration has protected the homeland flawlessly since 9/11. That, after all, is the single most important job the prez has.

The war, no matter how justifiable it was under UN resolution, was not started to enforce the UN resolutions. It was started because we thought Iraq had WMD and that they would use it against us or sell it to someone else who would use it. Do you or do you not agree that this is fact?

We have not found any significant WMD yet. Do you agree with that?

Therefore, our premise for war was wrong. Perhaps not morally wrong, but factually wrong, and probably legally wrong.

Are you so ethically bankrupt that you cannot or will not hold your leaders accountable for such a potentially dangerous error in judgement? Are we being good conservatives if we give GW a pass on his responsibility for what may turn out to be an illegally prosecuted war against a soveriegn nation?

My God man, I have heard of party loyalty, but your first loyalty should be to the Constitution and the democratic prinicples it was founded on.

Let's not forget how vigorously and rightly we prosecuted Bill Clinton for his lack of character and his lies to the people. I would think going to war based on faulty intelligence as at least as bad as getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and lying to a Grand Jury about it.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse, or what.

GW is worthy or reelection simply because he and his administration has protected the homeland flawlessly since 9/11. That, after all, is the single most important job the prez has.

The war, no matter how justifiable it was under UN resolution, was not started to enforce the UN resolutions. It was started because we thought Iraq had WMD and that they would use it against us or sell it to someone else who would use it. Do you or do you not agree that this is fact?

I do not agree. Bush cited many reasons at different times. Enforcement of U.N. resolutions was most definitely one of them. "WMD was THE only reason given" is a lie.

We have not found any significant WMD yet. Do you agree with that?

YET. Perhaps they were moved. Is that a possiblity in your minute world.

Therefore, our premise for war was wrong. Perhaps not morally wrong, but factually wrong, and probably legally wrong.

Legally I would think enforcement of U.N. resolutions would be reason enough. Why is it not? Oh cuz Bush didn't FOCUS on it? What a deranged outlook.

Are you so ethically bankrupt that you cannot or will not hold your leaders accountable for such a potentially dangerous error in judgement? Are we being good conservatives if we give GW a pass on his responsibility for what may turn out to be an illegally prosecuted war against a soveriegn nation?

Get off your moral high horse, spinner. And don't use "we".

My God man, I have heard of party loyalty, but your first loyalty should be to the Constitution and the democratic prinicples it was founded on.

Let's not forget how vigorously and rightly we prosecuted Bill Clinton for his lack of character and his lies to the people. I would think going to war based on faulty intelligence as at least as bad as getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and lying to a Grand Jury about it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Once again. Yes hindsight is 20/20. faulty info, however does nothing to disrepute the prez. You're dismissed. Have fun on the slide, child.

 

[freeandfun1]

hmmmmmmm where to start......?

Originally posted by montyfowler
I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse, or what.

GW is worthy or reelection simply because he and his administration has protected the homeland flawlessly since 9/11. That, after all, is the single most important job the prez has.

On this point I believe we are in agreement.

The war, no matter how justifiable it was under UN resolution, was not started to enforce the UN resolutions.

How do YOU come to that conclusion? Just curious.

It was started because we thought Iraq had WMD and that they would use it against us or sell it to someone else who would use it. Do you or do you not agree that this is fact?

Well, you presented more than one "fact" and then ask us if we agree with this fact...

First off, the UN resolutions were ALL the justification we needed according to the liberals up until we decided to take action. Then everybody wanted to back track. Secondly, the end of the first Gulf War was predicated on Iraq complying with UN resolutions. So I take the position that since he did not comply, all this recent conflict is, is a resumption of the military effort to get him to comply.

If you want to ignore the second part, go ahead as I agree the war was started for the reasons you state and Bush, Kerry, Clinton, et. al. all said the same thing. The difference it, Bush acted.

We have not found any significant WMD yet. Do you agree with that?

Yes, but I also understand that we waited so long that we have no idea where they might now be. The UN, Clinton, et. al. also said he had them. Do you agree with that fact? Bush was not the only one that cried "fire" in the theater. It was yelled by others first and repeated by him. Is he alone wrong because he of that?

I would also submit that the key word is: YET.

Therefore, our premise for war was wrong. Perhaps not morally wrong, but factually wrong, and probably legally wrong.

As somebody else said, hindsight is 20/20 and very convenient. All the indicators where there. The UN, Clinton, etc., etc.....

Are you so ethically bankrupt that you cannot or will not hold your leaders accountable for such a potentially dangerous error in judgement? Are we being good conservatives if we give GW a pass on his responsibility for what may turn out to be an illegally prosecuted war against a soveriegn nation?

None of your arguments thus far are holding any water. Why won't you stop being ethically bankrupt and admit you are being partisan. Otherwise, why won't you be honest with yourself and admit what has been presented a gazillion times?

My God man, I have heard of party loyalty, but your first loyalty should be to the Constitution and the democratic prinicples it was founded on.

Very true. However, isn't defeding our country, it's ideals and it's interests all part of what is required for us to defend the constitution?

Let's not forget how vigorously and rightly we prosecuted Bill Clinton for his lack of character and his lies to the people. I would think going to war based on faulty intelligence as at least as bad as getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and lying to a Grand Jury about it.

I would agree if your premise that he knew 100% that the intelligence was faulty. Even if he suspected it might be, I would rather a president be pro-active than re-active. We have already seen what happens when we ignore.

Now I ask, if you are honest with yourself, wouldn't you agree?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

High five, FAF1. This fool is dumstruck at this point!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Helloooooo? fool? Anything?

 

[montyfowler]

Now I know why we get labeled "closeminded" some times. Geez.

Look guys, I honestly believe that president in his mind believes the war in Iraq is just and right. I am also certain that he would not have sent our country to war if he had any doubt about the quality of the intelligence he was given. I believe we all agree on these points.

But it does not change the material fact that the intelligence was wrong. Is it his fault, or even the fault of anyone in his administration? I doubt it. The fact that our intelligence gathering capabilities in the middle east were so degraded is squarely the responsibility of the Clinton administration who for eights years undermined the intelligence community.

But guess what. Clinton did not give orders to invade Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Our man did, and like it or not, he will and must take the heat for it. And he will not do anything less than that, because he is, more than anything, a man of integrity.

You seem to think I am blaming the president for the failings of the intelligence community, or worse, saying that he purposely misled the American people. I do not believe that.

But we cannot ignore that the premise for the war was wrong. Yes, enforcing UN resolution would have been enough to justify war. Yes, Saddam's willful disregard for the will of the international community to disclose the state of his WMD programs was enough reason to go to war. Yes, the fact that he was a horrible tyrrant who committed genocide on his own people was enough reason to go to war. But none of these reasons were the PRIMARY motive for war.

We did not simply ask the UN to enforce the resolutions. We showed the UN "proof" that Iraq currently had WMD and that it presented an imminent threat to the US and the world. We knew the UN would never vote to enforce the resolutions unless we embarrassed them into action by making them look weak on the subject of WMD enforcement. And Colin Powell did that, and in the process, exposed Germany, France, and Russia for the hypocrytical regimes that they are.

But this thin mandate from the UN does not absolve the US from its' responsibility to present accurate intelligence when seeking to make war on a sovereign nation.

In effect what you are saying is, "Whoops, sorry we broke your country but we thought you had nukes. We'll put everything back together and promise not to do it again." Come on. We're better than that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
Now I know why we get labeled "closeminded" some times. Geez.

Look guys, I honestly believe that president in his mind believes the war in Iraq is just and right. I am also certain that he would not have sent our country to war if he had any doubt about the quality of the intelligence he was given. I believe we all agree on these points.

But it does not change the material fact that the intelligence was wrong. Is it his fault, or even the fault of anyone in his administration? I doubt it. The fact that our intelligence gathering capabilities in the middle east were so degraded is squarely the responsibility of the Clinton administration who for eights years undermined the intelligence community.

But guess what. Clinton did not give orders to invade Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Our man did, and like it or not, he will and must take the heat for it. And he will not do anything less than that, because he is, more than anything, a man of integrity.

You seem to think I am blaming the president for the failings of the intelligence community, or worse, saying that he purposely misled the American people. I do not believe that.

But we cannot ignore that the premise for the war was wrong. Yes, enforcing UN resolution would have been enough to justify war. Yes, Saddam's willful disregard for the will of the international community to disclose the state of his WMD programs was enough reason to go to war. Yes, the fact that he was a horrible tyrrant who committed genocide on his own people was enough reason to go to war. But none of these reasons were the PRIMARY motive for war.

We did not simply ask the UN to enforce the resolutions. We showed the UN "proof" that Iraq currently had WMD and that it presented an imminent threat to the US and the world. We knew the UN would never vote to enforce the resolutions unless we embarrassed them into action by making them look weak on the subject of WMD enforcement. And Colin Powell did that, and in the process, exposed Germany, France, and Russia for the hypocrytical regimes that they are.

But this thin mandate from the UN does not absolve the US from its' responsibility to present accurate intelligence when seeking to make war on a sovereign nation.

In effect what you are saying is, "Whoops, sorry we broke your country but we thought you had nukes. We'll put everything back together and promise not to do it again." Come on. We're better than that.

Once again. There's more to it than wmd. The U.N. shouldve acted just for saddams hostility and noncoopertaion. Limiting the discussion to wmd is purely a partisan tactc. Knock it off. No one wants any. No one here believes you're a conservative either. Your distorted thinking gives you away. Before you were trying to impune the president's character, since that didn't work, you focused on improving the intel system, like a good little backpedaller.

 

[montyfowler]

Well...we can agree on one thing. I am definitely NOT your kind of conservative.

I gladly exercise my right to read, assimilate, think, and form opinions. Yes, I even form some opinions that do not hold fast to the party line. Conservative do not have a monopoly on the truth or on being right. We make mistakes, make bad judgements, and sometimes we even lie. (See Nixon, Iran-Contra, et al.)

My desire is for the president and this administration to admit they made a human mistake. I want them to acknowledge that our intelligence services need an overhaul. I want them to finish the work in Iraq by building a strong, secure, US-friendly democracy, and then exiting with our heads held high for a job well done.

I would hate to think that the sacrifice of so many brave troops and Iraqi citizens could be disgraced by a few men who can't admit they were wrong. But again, GW is a man of honor and he knows where the buck stops.

In summary, we should all be concerned about how and why we go to war. Why? Because real people die. It's not just words played out on a screen...it is real people bleeding and dying. And you may think their lives (those of the enemy) are worth less than ours, but you are wrong. And if we take their lives for anything less than justifiable reasons, we're all responsible.

That's my conservative principle.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
Well...we can agree on one thing. I am definitely NOT your kind of conservative.

I gladly exercise my right to read, assimilate, think, and form opinions.

No one's questioning your right. You're just doing it poorly and dishonestly.

Yes, I even form some opinions that do not hold fast to the party line.

Then why the intense focus on "what bush said". If you really thought for yourself, you wouldn't be so fixated.

Conservative do not have a monopoly on the truth or on being right.

No. but were the blue chip in the market.

We make mistakes, make bad judgements, and sometimes we even lie. (See Nixon, Iran-Contra, et al.)

The left lies constantly, about bush, about america, about history, about everything. No one wants to hear your commy crap anymore and you guys don't know how to handle it.

My desire is for the president and this administration to admit they made a human mistake. I want them to acknowledge that our intelligence services need an overhaul. I want them to finish the work in Iraq by building a strong, secure, US-friendly democracy, and then exiting with our heads held high for a job well done.

I'm sure that's your desire.

I would hate to think that the sacrifice of so many brave troops and Iraqi citizens could be disgraced by a few men who can't admit they were wrong. But again, GW is a man of honor and he knows where the buck stops.

The only people who care about Bush "coming clean" are lefty idiots. The troops know why we went. Everyone does in reality. Even you. you're just putting your partisanship above your patriotism, you fake conservative liar.

In summary, we should all be concerned about how and why we go to war. Why? Because real people die. It's not just words played out on a screen...it is real people bleeding and dying. And you may think their lives (those of the enemy) are worth less than ours, but you are wrong. And if we take their lives for anything less than justifiable reasons, we're all responsible.

That's my conservative principle.

We all know it's real mr. emotive imagery. I'm quite convinced the war was justified.

You're a fake.

 

[montyfowler]

You are one angry dude.

Anyway...I had higher hopes for this message board. I'll continue to check it out for a few more days and see if you and your uninteresting, offish diatribes are the norm or the exception.

Just a hint... your arguments do not necessarily have to be argumentative in tone. It is possible to state your opinion without resorting to personal attacks and ad hominem comments. Try it.

That is such a liberal trait, I am surprised a staunch conservative such as yourself would employ it. ;-)

 

[5stringJeff]

Monty,

Don't worry, most of us on this board are pretty fun to both talk and debate (not argue) with. Check out the chat sections below and you'll see.

BTW, welcome!

Jeff

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by montyfowler
You are one angry dude.

Man, the site is good and his tone is a little off-base, but I think he is just frustrated because either:

1. You don't get it.

or

2. You are a liar that is just getting what you want: a conservative all riled up and makin a fool of himself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
You are one angry dude.

Anyway...I had higher hopes for this message board. I'll continue to check it out for a few more days and see if you and your uninteresting, offish diatribes are the norm or the exception.

Just a hint... your arguments do not necessarily have to be argumentative in tone. It is possible to state your opinion without resorting to personal attacks and ad hominem comments. Try it.

That is such a liberal trait, I am surprised a staunch conservative such as yourself would employ it. ;-)

Now that you've been handed your ass on a cracker, I'm uninteresting. You cared what I had to say when you thought you could spin your way around me. Being cold cocked has soured you some on the RWA. That's understandable.

I'm sorry. Lies and liars anger me. Why don't you be honest and maybe you won't be called a liar.

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Monty,

Don't worry, most of us on this board are pretty fun to both talk and debate (not argue) with. Check out the chat sections below and you'll see.

BTW, welcome!

Jeff

Thanks for the welcome. I've been smacked around a bit today, but that's the beauty of our great republic and the free exchange of ideas. No matter how poor the grammar.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
Thanks for the welcome. I've been smacked around a bit today, but that's the beauty of our great republic and the free exchange of ideas. No matter how poor the grammar.

oh grammar schmammar! Welcome anyway, Liar!