G.O.P. Now Embraces War as Issue

[Bullypulpit]

A few weeks ago, skittish Republicans were distancing themselves from using the war in Iraq as a political issue. Now, apparently, <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22capital.html?th&emc=th>they are embracing the war</a> with open arms.

I say, "Let them."

Let them embrace the failure to find WMD's, the reason for going to war with Iraq to begin with.

Let them embrace the $320 billion dollar price tag to American tax-payers. After all, Paul Wolfowitz did say that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the costs of the war and reconstruction and former OMB DIrector Mitch Daniels estimated the cost to be in the neighborhood of $50 - $60 billion.

Let them embrace the fact that Iraqi oil production is far below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the no bid contracts to Haliburton, which was operating at a loss prior to Dick Cheney ascending to Vice-President of the US.

Let them embrace the BILLIONS of tax dollars that disappeared in Iraq under the oversight of Proconsul J. Paul Bremmer.

Let them embrace the attrocities at Abu Ghraib.

Let them embrace the failure to rebuild the infrastructure, which continues to provide water and electricity at below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the more than 2500 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and the nearly 20000 who have been wounded and maimed.

Let them embrace the continued sectarian violence claiming Iraqi lives on a daily basis.

Gosh, I could just go on and on!

 

[dilloduck]

A few weeks ago, skittish Republicans were distancing themselves from using the war in Iraq as a political issue. Now, apparently, <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22capital.html?th&emc=th>they are embracing the war</a> with open arms.

I say, "Let them."

Let them embrace the failure to find WMD's, the reason for going to war with Iraq to begin with.

Let them embrace the $320 billion dollar price tag to American tax-payers. After all, Paul Wolfowitz did say that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the costs of the war and reconstruction and former OMB DIrector Mitch Daniels estimated the cost to be in the neighborhood of $50 - $60 billion.

Let them embrace the fact that Iraqi oil production is far below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the no bid contracts to Haliburton, which was operating at a loss prior to Dick Cheney ascending to Vice-President of the US.

Let them embrace the BILLIONS of tax dollars that disappeared in Iraq under the oversight of Proconsul J. Paul Bremmer.

Let them embrace the attrocities at Abu Ghraib.

Let them embrace the failure to rebuild the infrastructure, which continues to provide water and electricity at below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the more than 2500 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and the nearly 20000 who have been wounded and maimed.

Let them embrace the continued sectarian violence claiming Iraqi lives on a daily basis.

Gosh, I could just go on and on!

Im just going to embrace the thought that the WOT is happening in Iraq and we are not sitting in foxholes in America waiting for the next tower to go down.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Im just going to embrace the thought that the WOT is happening in Iraq and we are not sitting in foxholes in America waiting for the next tower to go down.

Iraq posed no threat , terrorist or otherwise, to America or its allies prior to the US invasion. Or have you forgotten...conveniently?

 

[CSM]

Iraq posed no threat , terrorist or otherwise, to America or its allies prior to the US invasion. Or have you forgotten...conveniently?

It's about time the Republican politicians get some balls....

 

[dilloduck]

Iraq posed no threat , terrorist or otherwise, to America or its allies prior to the US invasion. Or have you forgotten...conveniently?

Really--did you get that promise in writing from Saddam?:teeth:

 

[theHawk]

A few weeks ago, skittish Republicans were distancing themselves from using the war in Iraq as a political issue. Now, apparently, <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22capital.html?th&emc=th>they are embracing the war</a> with open arms.

I say, "Let them."

Let them embrace the failure to find WMD's, the reason for going to war with Iraq to begin with.

oopsie. 500 canisters of WMD were just found. Solid proof he did have WMD.

Let them embrace the $320 billion dollar price tag to American tax-payers. After all, Paul Wolfowitz did say that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the costs of the war and reconstruction and former OMB DIrector Mitch Daniels estimated the cost to be in the neighborhood of $50 - $60 billion.

I guess everytime we feel the need to go to war, we need to weigh in the cash value. I would think you of all people would understand that putting a cash value on human freedom is amoral. Guess not...hypocrit.

Let them embrace the fact that Iraqi oil production is far below pre-war levels.

Our reason for going to war was not the presumption that post-war levels would be the same as pre-war.

Let them embrace the no bid contracts to Haliburton, which was operating at a loss prior to Dick Cheney ascending to Vice-President of the US.

Should be thanking Clinton, Haliburton was arwarded contracts with his administration. Maybe you own a company that can do it better and cheaper then Haliburton?

Let them embrace the BILLIONS of tax dollars that disappeared in Iraq under the oversight of Proconsul J. Paul Bremmer.

I don't think any of us would embrace wasting billions of dollars, except of course liberals embrace it when its distributed in welfare.

Let them embrace the attrocities at Abu Ghraib.

Why would we? Those people broke US policy and were punished. But I understand you need to get your jab in at the military you hate so much.

Let them embrace the failure to rebuild the infrastructure, which continues to provide water and electricity at below pre-war levels.

I'm sure you would embrace that, since it is people like you who embolden the terrorists to keep attacking. But maybe your right, next time we think about going to war with a country we should think about the fact they won't have reliable electricity, because people's water and electricity is more important than our national security needs.

Let them embrace the more than 2500 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and the nearly 20000 who have been wounded and maimed.

Yes, lets embrace those that have sacrificed to try to make this world a better place. As opposed to assholes like you that belittle their sacrifices at every chance while sitting behind a computer. Gutless coward.

Let them embrace the continued sectarian violence claiming Iraqi lives on a daily basis.

Freedom is a bitch isn't it? If only they had tyrant to keep them all in line!

Gosh, I could just go on and on!

Never doubt the ability of a liberal to find ways to lose a war!

 

[dmp]

Hawk - VERY good. Very good indeed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

oopsie. 500 canisters of WMD were just found. Solid proof he did have WMD.

Pre-Gulf War I, and not threat to anyone, according to Charles Duelfer. It's just Rick Santorum grasping for straws as he's 18 points down in the polls.

I guess everytime we feel the need to go to war, we need to weigh in the cash value. I would think you of all people would understand that putting a cash value on human freedom is amoral. Guess not...hypocrit.

So you admit Iraq was a war of choice? A war of agression should be considered in just such terms.

Our reason for going to war was not the presumption that post-war levels would be the same as pre-war.

<blockquote>We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools. - George W. Bush, 05/01/03</blockquote>

THe only thig we're building is a massive ambassadorial compound and, at latest count, some 14 permanent military bases.

Should be thanking Clinton, Haliburton was arwarded contracts with his administration. Maybe you own a company that can do it better and cheaper then Haliburton?

As awarded through a bidding process

I don't think any of us would embrace wasting billions of dollars, except of course liberals embrace it when its distributed in welfare.

Actually, I was thinking of US port security...Securing US nuclear and chemical facilities...body armor for US troops and up-armoring of US military vehicles.

Why would we? Those people broke US policy and were punished. But I understand you need to get your jab in at the military you hate so much.

The only ones punished were a 5 or 6 enlisted personnel. No one higher up the chain of command has been given more than a letter of reprimand. If you remember the pictures, there wer many more than just 6 pairs of boots in those pictures.

I'm sure you would embrace that, since it is people like you who embolden the terrorists to keep attacking. But maybe your right, next time we think about going to war with a country we should think about the fact they won't have reliable electricity, because people's water and electricity is more important than our national security needs.

You win more hearts and minds by providing reliable infrastructure, police forces, healthcare and schools than you do by letting these services languish.

Yes, lets embrace those that have sacrificed to try to make this world a better place. As opposed to assholes like you that belittle their sacrifices at every chance while sitting behind a computer. Gutless coward.

I served honorably, I don't know about you, and don't care. I've had family serving with a artillery company in Iraq, repeatedly. So bite me.

Freedom is a bitch isn't it? If only they had tyrant to keep them all in line!

No, freedom is not "a bitch"...It is a responsibility which to many fail to grasp. And your grasp on it seems tenuous , at best.

 

[dmp]

Pre-Gulf War I, and not threat to anyone, according to Charles Duelfer. It's just Rick Santorum grasping for straws as he's 18 points down in the polls.

Oh yeah? You know those munitions weren't viable? That's your way of dismissing reality perhaps. Those gasses/chemicals can still be leathal. The issue isn't the age - the issue is, finding those munitions PROVES Saddam was in violation of the Cease-fire AND UN mandates.

I suppose none of that matters to somebody like you - filled to the brim with hate for our country.

So you admit Iraq was a war of choice? A war of agression should be considered in just such terms.

War of choice? That's one of the stupidest terms I've heard on this board.

THe only thig we're building is a massive ambassadorial compound and, at latest count, some 14 permanent military bases.

You are ignorant. You need a LOT of education about Iraq and what goes on there. Turn OFF Air America.

The only ones punished were a 5 or 6 enlisted personnel. No one higher up the chain of command has been given more than a letter of reprimand. If you remember the pictures, there wer many more than just 6 pairs of boots in those pictures.

Again - how you can be so f'ing ignorant is beyond me. You make wild assumptions w/o having a grasp on facts. RESEARCH what you just said if you want to know the truth.

You win more hearts and minds by providing reliable infrastructure, police forces, healthcare and schools than you do by letting these services languish.

That's what's happening. WTF are you talking about?

I served honorably, I don't know about you, and don't care. So bite me.

Yet you bring dishonor upon your country now? weird.

No, freedom is not "a bitch"...It is a responsibility which to many fail to grasp. And your grasp on it seems tenuous , at best.

Hawk knows people need to have the scrote to go to war if that's the best solution. War IS the best solution to deal with people like Saddam.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Really--did you get that promise in writing from Saddam?:teeth:

<blockquote>"There was no hard intelligence of a current weapons program that would represent a new and compelling threat to our interests. Nor did the dossier at any stage admit the basic scientific fact the biological and chemical agents have a finite shelf life — a principle understood by every pharmacist...

Even if Hussein had destroyed none of his arsenal from 1991, it would long ago have become useless." - Robin Cook, former British Foreign Secretary, 06/06/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It's not, I think, thoroughly established to everybody's satisfaction that Iraq is, in fact, a threat. Threat requires capability, and I think that's pretty well established, at least on the chemical and biological front. But it also requires intent. And here, I think, reporting, the international consensus on this and a large measure of domestic commentary as well, I just don't think that case has been made. Certainly the Al-Qaeda link argument has been very, very fragile indeed, in the way that that's been articulated for, and the evidence that's been produced for it. So you've got a problem in establishing a threat itself, either to the neighborhood or to the wider U.S. and Western community." - Gareth Evans, before the Council on Foreign relations, 04/10/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"An additional good reason is that Iraq, however nasty a regime it has, hardly poses a threat to Europe or the United States. Some of us recall how Nasser, dictator/leader of Egypt, was built up in Europe and America as a 'new Hitler' on the Nile, who must not be appeased. This laid the popular basis for Israel, Britian and France's failed 'tri-partite aggression' against Egypt in late 1956. But Nasser had no Ruhr, no industrial base to threaten the West. It was a silly analogy. We have the same case today - Saddam Hussein also is no Hitler. He may have weapons of mass destruction but these days anybody can have those if they have enough anger and a willingness to risk the wrath of the West." - W. Scott Thompson, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of International Politics, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, 03/18/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 02/24/2001</blockquote>

 

[dmp]

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 02/24/2001</blockquote>

...because he HID them....geesh...your poor frustrated mind....

 

[Bullypulpit]

Oh yeah? You know those munitions weren't viable? That's your way of dismissing reality perhaps. Those gasses/chemicals can still be leathal. The issue isn't the age - the issue is, finding those munitions PROVES Saddam was in violation of the Cease-fire AND UN mandates.

I suppose none of that matters to somebody like you - filled to the brim with hate for our country.



War of choice? That's one of the stupidest terms I've heard on this board.



You are ignorant. You need a LOT of education about Iraq and what goes on there. Turn OFF Air America.



Again - how you can be so f'ing ignorant is beyond me. You make wild assumptions w/o having a grasp on facts. RESEARCH what you just said if you want to know the truth.



That's what's happening. WTF are you talking about?



Yet you bring dishonor upon your country now? weird.



Hawk knows people need to have the scrote to go to war if that's the best solution. War IS the best solution to deal with people like Saddam.

Seems like you're the one drinking the Republican kool-aid, and loving it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

...because he HID them....geesh...your poor frustrated mind....

More kool-aide...

 

[dmp]

More kool-aide...

oh! hah! I get it!! LMAO!! DUDE - you are SOO smart and funny!! hahah! SEE?? everyone SEE? hahah! He's saying "All the facts which point to Bullypulpit being ignorant about ANYTHING related to reality in Iraq is KOOL AIDE!" VERY clever to use the Kool-Aide label. It's always fun when somebody takes a label which was designed for ONE thing (Liberal lies and mis-direction) and apply it to something ELSE (Truth.)...dude - you are SOOO funny. I'm in awe at your wit and intellect! Seriously? Did anyone ELSE see how pithy and clever he is? OMG it's brilliant! Way to go!! Way to ignore reality because you Like how lies tickle your ears. Keep it up!! honestly!! You're Hilarious.

 

[CSM]

Pre-Gulf War I, and not threat to anyone, according to Charles Duelfer. It's just Rick Santorum grasping for straws as he's 18 points down in the polls.


Charles Duelfer the chemical weapons expert? Never heard of him. The Pre-GW I 155mm artillery shells that are now used as IEDs weren't a threat to anyone either. I do agree that these similar shells were found some time ago, leaked to the public, dismissed as being the "wrong" WMDs, etc. I wish you libs would describe the right ones because until you do, we just keep finding the wrong ones.


So you admit Iraq was a war of choice? A war of agression should be considered in just such terms.

All wars are a war of choice. Some of the other choices in such situations are capitulation, surrender and appeasement. I guess you would have selected one of those cause anything else costs too much money.


<blockquote>We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools. - George W. Bush, 05/01/03</blockquote>

THe only thig we're building is a massive ambassadorial compound and, at latest count, some 14 permanent military bases.

You need to get out more. Hospitals, schools and so on are being built with YOUR money all over Iraq. I suppose though it would be MUCH better if the troops were living in holes in the ground with no sanitary facilities, dining facilities, recreational facilities etc. and had to forage for food fuel and ammunition. I bet you support the troops, right?


As awarded through a bidding process

Uh, no...already been discussed at length on this board....no bid contracts from the government to Halburton fostered by your idol, BC. I guess you conveniently forgot that like you do a lot of other things.

Actually, I was thinking of US port security...Securing US nuclear and chemical facilities...body armor for US troops and up-armoring of US military vehicles.

I am all for more money for the big bad defense industry. See? we can agree on some things!

The only ones punished were a 5 or 6 enlisted personnel. No one higher up the chain of command has been given more than a letter of reprimand. If you remember the pictures, there wer many more than just 6 pairs of boots in those pictures.

Well, that female General will be very glad to know she wasn't relieved of command. But then you wanted a public hanging didn't you. Maybe you will get more satisfaction cheering for the other side...they like showing the blood and gore. O wait, you already do cheer for the terrorists!

You win more hearts and minds by providing reliable infrastructure, police forces, healthcare and schools than you do by letting these services languish.

Dont want hearts and minds...want their BALLS! The hearts and minds will follow eventually. By the way, if Saddam the Beneovolent had provided all those things, we wouldn't be talking about Iraq at all; same goes for OBL and all the other terrorist leaders out there...force THEM to spend less on bombs and bullets and more on schools and health care and I will be right there with you....

I served honorably, I don't know about you, and don't care. I've had family serving with a artillery company in Iraq, repeatedly. So bite me.

Fair shot and good on ya....thanks for your service ( I mean that, ya know)

No, freedom is not "a bitch"...It is a responsibility which to many fail to grasp. And your grasp on it seems tenuous , at best.

I am very curious and hopefully you will indulge me; just what responsibilities do you think freedom imposes on those who enjoy its benefits....being serious here.

Bully is always good for dragging up old stuff to rehash.

 

[Bonnie]

A few weeks ago, skittish Republicans were distancing themselves from using the war in Iraq as a political issue. Now, apparently, <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22capital.html?th&emc=th>they are embracing the war</a> with open arms.

I say, "Let them."

Let them embrace the failure to find WMD's, the reason for going to war with Iraq to begin with.

Let them embrace the $320 billion dollar price tag to American tax-payers. After all, Paul Wolfowitz did say that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the costs of the war and reconstruction and former OMB DIrector Mitch Daniels estimated the cost to be in the neighborhood of $50 - $60 billion.

Let them embrace the fact that Iraqi oil production is far below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the no bid contracts to Haliburton, which was operating at a loss prior to Dick Cheney ascending to Vice-President of the US.

Let them embrace the BILLIONS of tax dollars that disappeared in Iraq under the oversight of Proconsul J. Paul Bremmer.

Let them embrace the attrocities at Abu Ghraib.

Let them embrace the failure to rebuild the infrastructure, which continues to provide water and electricity at below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the more than 2500 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and the nearly 20000 who have been wounded and maimed.

Let them embrace the continued sectarian violence claiming Iraqi lives on a daily basis.

Gosh, I could just go on and on!

Good Finally!!!!!! Better late than never

 

[Bullypulpit]

oh! hah! I get it!! LMAO!! DUDE - you are SOO smart and funny!! hahah! SEE?? everyone SEE? hahah! He's saying "All the facts which point to Bullypulpit being ignorant about ANYTHING related to reality in Iraq is KOOL AIDE!" VERY clever to use the Kool-Aide label. It's always fun when somebody takes a label which was designed for ONE thing (Liberal lies and mis-direction) and apply it to something ELSE (Truth.)...dude - you are SOOO funny. I'm in awe at your wit and intellect! Seriously? Did anyone ELSE see how pithy and clever he is? OMG it's brilliant! Way to go!! Way to ignore reality because you Like how lies tickle your ears. Keep it up!! honestly!! You're Hilarious.

It's getting really hard to continue to defend the indefensible, isn't it. But that's exactly what you do every time you defend the actions of the Bush Administration in Iraq. It's very much like family members defending the actions of their alcoholic loved one despite the damage he or she does to everyone and everything around them. Denial of reality is their only defense against reality.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's getting really hard to continue to defend the indefensible, isn't it?

You tell us. Is it hard to keep defending liberals and their bad ideas?

 

[Stephanie]

I think some people need to contact their Democrat party and ask for a updated verson of their talking points for this month....

 

[dmp]

It's getting really hard to continue to defend the indefensible, isn't it. But that's exactly what you do every time you defend the actions of the Bush Administration in Iraq. It's very much like family members defending the actions of their alcoholic loved one despite the damage he or she does to everyone and everything around them. Denial of reality is their only defense against reality.

^
|
|
Translation: "Nuh-UH!!! YOU ARE!!!"

Got it, Thanks for playing, son.