Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 55

Thread: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

  1. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Who wants to stop defending the country? I just want to stop invading and occupying countries that haven't attacked us. Think about it this way: the Bush doctrine is basically "invade and occupy countries that might someday prove to have been a threat to the United States in some way." Imagine if every country adopted the Bush doctrine, what would be the result? This is why the US at Nuremberg tried to define aggression, invading a country that had not attack you first, as the ultimate war crime. Worse even than terrorism. We're now being reminded of the wisdom of that generation. You don't defend your country by starting wars.
    3Ball, your posts have become downright hilarious. What you refer to as the "Bush doctrine" to invade and occupy poor, innocent "countries that haven't attacked us," like Iraq, controlled by (the late) humanitarian Saddam Hussein, was viewed differently by Democrats not so long ago.

    Since we just had the President's SOTU address, it is revealing to revisit the Democrats response to the SOTU just a few years ago, in 2003, in which Gov. Gary Locke (D-WA) stated about Bush's policy:

    Democrats support President Bush's handling of the Iraq situation but believe he must do more to strengthen America's economy and its homeland security, said a Democratic governor delivering the opposition party's response to the Republican president's State of the Union message.

    Bush has dealt properly with Iraq and its "ruthless tyrant," Saddam Hussein, said Washington Gov. Gary Locke, who spoke Tuesday night after the president's annual speech,
    the second in his administration.
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...nse/index.html

    So, not so long ago, the Democrats supported -- or at least claimed to, even though it is fair to doubt their candor -- the very Bush doctrine you are now complaining about, and approved of what was done in Iraq. Were they lying then? Were they simply pandering, based on then-existing popular opinion?

    You actually want to harken back to Nuremburg as an (alleged) history lesson? Try Edmund Burke's history lesson: " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

  2. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Saddam was no humanitarian, my friend. He was a villain plain and simple, and I don't know of anyone sad to see his demise. The Democrats that supported the war like Hillary Clinton were as wrong as Bush. It's not hilarious, it's damn serious. They didn't have the strength to stand up to an illegal war then. Let's hope they do know. That's the lesson of Burke.

    And once again, you continue to put forward the false choice: invade and occupy or do nothing. That wasn't the choice then, and it isn't now.

  3. #28

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by mike_D View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Of course if you can't defend this country from a enemy that wants to exterminate us at all costs what good does all that do you.Free Health Care, a great economy, nice job, nice car it will all be gone in a second once our enemy decides or gets its hands on a biological/chemical/dirty bomb in a major city.
    I'd almost like to start this up as a separate discussion. How many foiled terrorist plots have there been in the 5.5 years since 9/11? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about where we thought something might be happeneing and then it didn't. I'm talking about situations where we caught someone planning an attack on US soil. Have our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq really been the reason there hasn't been another attack? From what I hear, the Taliban has set up camp in northern Pakistan, and is slowly turning that country from moderate Islamic Democracy to radical Islamic State. Why are we not in Pakistan stopping that ongoing problem? Surely if they were training terrorists in Afghanistan, they're training them in Pakistan, our ally, as we speak.

    I'll tell you my opinion why. This time around, there's no incentive for Bush to chase after terror, because he doesn't need to distract people from his other failures by shining a spotlight on a different problem. I think it's no coincidence that his failure to catch bin Laden in Afghanistan was causing his approval ratings to drop like a stone, and we just happened to hear (fake) intelligence that Iraq had WMDs, forcing us to invade, and boosting Bush's approval ratings just prior to the election, giving him a strong platform to run on, and simultaneously robbing the Democrats of any leverage they had. After all, it's bad business to oust a sitting President in the middle of a war he started.

    I think his goal over the next two years is to try to stabilize Iraq and try to avoid a war with Iran. Accomplishing those two things will repair most of the damage he's done and keep the incoming President from having to deal with an ongoing war. Of course, that same President will have to deal with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan (another project Bush didn't finish), a possibly nuclear Iran, and not to mention our oft-neglected friend North Korea.

    One final comment. If we're so concerned about terrorists getting WMDs, then why have we allowed North Korea to continue making nuclear weapons? Let's run down the checklist:

    Hates America? Check.

    Dirt poor and desperately needs income? Check.

    Has something that wealthy terrorists desperately want? Check.

    If anything, Bush has flat-out ignored the biggest threat to the United States, which continues to be North Korea via terrorists. Osama's planes and Saddam's Scuds full of Anthrax are mere drops in the bucket compared to that.

  4. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Woodside,NY
    Age
    32
    Posts
    281

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd almost like to start this up as a separate discussion. How many foiled terrorist plots have there been in the 5.5 years since 9/11? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about where we thought something might be happeneing and then it didn't. I'm talking about situations where we caught someone planning an attack on US soil. Have our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq really been the reason there hasn't been another attack? From what I hear, the Taliban has set up camp in northern Pakistan, and is slowly turning that country from moderate Islamic Democracy to radical Islamic State. Why are we not in Pakistan stopping that ongoing problem? Surely if they were training terrorists in Afghanistan, they're training them in Pakistan, our ally, as we speak.

    I'll tell you my opinion why. This time around, there's no incentive for Bush to chase after terror, because he doesn't need to distract people from his other failures by shining a spotlight on a different problem. I think it's no coincidence that his failure to catch bin Laden in Afghanistan was causing his approval ratings to drop like a stone, and we just happened to hear (fake) intelligence that Iraq had WMDs, forcing us to invade, and boosting Bush's approval ratings just prior to the election, giving him a strong platform to run on, and simultaneously robbing the Democrats of any leverage they had. After all, it's bad business to oust a sitting President in the middle of a war he started.

    I think his goal over the next two years is to try to stabilize Iraq and try to avoid a war with Iran. Accomplishing those two things will repair most of the damage he's done and keep the incoming President from having to deal with an ongoing war. Of course, that same President will have to deal with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan (another project Bush didn't finish), a possibly nuclear Iran, and not to mention our oft-neglected friend North Korea.

    One final comment. If we're so concerned about terrorists getting WMDs, then why have we allowed North Korea to continue making nuclear weapons? Let's run down the checklist:

    Hates America? Check.

    Dirt poor and desperately needs income? Check.

    Has something that wealthy terrorists desperately want? Check.

    If anything, Bush has flat-out ignored the biggest threat to the United States, which continues to be North Korea via terrorists. Osama's planes and Saddam's Scuds full of Anthrax are mere drops in the bucket compared to that.
    Do you know for sure that were not in anyway operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence.Just because you don't hear about it on CNN or Fox News doesn't mean its not happening.

    As far as Saddam having WMD, my Battalion before being deployed spent alot of time training like Saddam had WMD, and as far as I know the most of the Worlds intelligence pointed to the fact that Saddam had WMD.Where did they go?Did he have them?Did he destroy them before the invasion?These are all questions that should be asked but I don't think Bush knowingly lied. I honestly think he expected to find the huge weapons caches like most of us in the military and rest of world believed.

  5. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Woodside,NY
    Age
    32
    Posts
    281

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Who wants to stop defending the country? I just want to stop invading and occupying countries that haven't attacked us. Think about it this way: the Bush doctrine is basically "invade and occupy countries that might someday prove to have been a threat to the United States in some way." Imagine if every country adopted the Bush doctrine, what would be the result? This is why the US at Nuremberg tried to define aggression, invading a country that had not attack you first, as the ultimate war crime. Worse even than terrorism. We're now being reminded of the wisdom of that generation. You don't defend your country by starting wars.
    The irony of this whole debate is Bush and Clinton were both blamed after 9/11 for not going into Afghanistan to destroy Terroist training camps and capture Bin Laden and his group of Thugs.They made the wrong decision and we paid the ultimate price. If Bush or Clinton had decided prior to lauch an large scale invasion in 99 or 2000 people like you would be saying the same exact thing that your saying right now.Meanwhile the Twin Towers would still be standing 3,000 innocent civilians would still be alive, first responders(FD,NYPD,EMS) wouldn't have the health/breathing and financial hardship they have today.

    No one can predict the future but if you have a problem with a country/Enemy that is a threat to your National Security and they are unwilling to negotiate what are else are you left with.Where do you go from there?Iran is a perfect example.They have publically said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.They don't recognize Israel so they won't talk to them if your Israel what do you do.Do you wait for them to get the bomb and hope they don't set off a nuke in Tel Aviv or do you start prepping for a war plan to dismantle Iran nuclear capability.Both options suck but one is much worse then the other Israel.

  6. #31

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by mike_D View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do you know for sure that were not in anyway operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence.Just because you don't hear about it on CNN or Fox News doesn't mean its not happening.

    As far as Saddam having WMD, my Battalion before being deployed spent alot of time training like Saddam had WMD, and as far as I know the most of the Worlds intelligence pointed to the fact that Saddam had WMD.Where did they go?Did he have them?Did he destroy them before the invasion?These are all questions that should be asked but I don't think Bush knowingly lied. I honestly think he expected to find the huge weapons caches like most of us in the military and rest of world believed.

    Do you know for sure that they were operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence? That game plays both ways.

    What I saw was a documentary done by a Pakistani who had been living in America, and was now visiting middle east countries to get a feel on their feelings and culture. She was shocked by how her country had changed since 9/11/2001. Conjecture is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that the Taliban is now in Pakistan, working to change it into Afghanistan 2.0, and it's not a hot button issue, nor is it being talked about.

    As far as I know, there were no WMDs. You don't just hide/destroy "huge weapons caches", especially not of the WMD variety, because they require a fairly large infrastructure. I'm with you that Bush had intelligence that said there were WMDs, but that intelligence was false, and it was flimsy. If I were going to aggressively invade a foreign country that had not attacked us first, which, by the way, was a first in the history of the United States, I believe, I'd need 100% positive proof, aka. Pictures, video, or first-hand accounts from many sources that had no reason to lie. In addition, I'd have to feel a real and present danger. Saddam was no more likely to sell these alleged WMDs to terrorists than he was in the years prior to the invasion. Meaning if he had them and wanted to sell them to attack America, he would have. And yet, not once have we been attacked, and we've not foiled any plots to drop WMDs into a major city, either.

    What you're asking me to believe is that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs, and either destroyed them instead of proliferating them to West-hating terrorists, or that he hid them and the factories they were made in so well that we've not found them after 5 years of looking. Or, you're asking me to believe that he got rid of them to terrorists who have not once tried to use them on us in the last 5 years.

    Sorry, that's too big a string of unlikely coincidences for me to follow.

  7. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Woodside,NY
    Age
    32
    Posts
    281

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    [quote=Eindar;536688]Do you know for sure that they were operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence? That game plays both ways. I have no idea which is why I asked the question and the only way you'll ever find out is if you were serving with special operations unit deployed there.Since your not one of them you know just as much as every other civilian in this country.You just make is sound like its a fact that we are not operating in that country.


    As far as I know, there were no WMDs. You don't just hide/destroy "huge weapons caches", especially not of the WMD variety, because they require a fairly large infrastructure. Hold on here Saddam if he wanted to had plenty of time.The first Gulf War happened what in 90-91, We went to War again in 03.Thats plenty of time to destroy or sell his weapons off to the highest bidder.



    I'm with you that Bush had intelligence that said there were WMDs, but that intelligence was false, and it was flimsy. If I were going to aggressively invade a foreign country that had not attacked us first, which, by the way, was a first in the history of the United States, I believe, I'd need 100% positive proof, aka. Pictures, video, or first-hand accounts from many sources that had no reason to lie. In addition, I'd have to feel a real and present danger.

    Did you feel like there was a "real and present danger" 9/10/2001.Secondly no intelligence is ever 100% positive proof.

    Saddam was no more likely to sell these alleged WMDs to terrorists than he was in the years prior to the invasion. Meaning if he had them and wanted to sell them to attack America, he would have. And yet, not once have we been attacked, and we've not foiled any plots to drop WMDs into a major city, either.

    First off I believe our Military and law Enforcement officials and President Bush deserve credit for making that happen.How many Americans would have thought 5 years down the road we have not suffered from another Terroist attack in this country. I also think because of that we as Americans have do have a false sense of security and think we are safer then we really are.If Local law enforcement or the Government released all the threats that we recieved on a daily basis such as Terroist group Hamas to target buses and subways it would be enough to cause panic and nobody would leave the house.

    What you're asking me to believe is that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs, and either destroyed them instead of proliferating them to West-hating terrorists, or that he hid them and the factories they were made in so well that we've not found them after 5 years of looking. Or, you're asking me to believe that he got rid of them to terrorists who have not once tried to use them on us in the last 5 years.

    Im not asking you to believe anything. What im saying was the guy had 12yrs from 91-2003 to do whatever he wanted with those weapons.Maybe he destoyed it, maybe he sold if off to terroist groups, maybe right before the invasion he shipped it off to Syria.I personally don't know but for people to say that Bush knowingly lied about WMD isn't fair at all.

    Sorry, that's too big a string of unlikely coincidences for me to follow.[/quote

  8. #33

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    [QUOTE=mike_D;536694]
    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do you know for sure that they were operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence? That game plays both ways. I have no idea which is why I asked the question and the only way you'll ever find out is if you were serving with special operations unit deployed there.Since your not one of them you know just as much as every other civilian in this country.You just make is sound like its a fact that we are not operating in that country.


    As far as I know, there were no WMDs. You don't just hide/destroy "huge weapons caches", especially not of the WMD variety, because they require a fairly large infrastructure. Hold on here Saddam if he wanted to had plenty of time.The first Gulf War happened what in 90-91, We went to War again in 03.Thats plenty of time to destroy or sell his weapons off to the highest bidder.



    I'm with you that Bush had intelligence that said there were WMDs, but that intelligence was false, and it was flimsy. If I were going to aggressively invade a foreign country that had not attacked us first, which, by the way, was a first in the history of the United States, I believe, I'd need 100% positive proof, aka. Pictures, video, or first-hand accounts from many sources that had no reason to lie. In addition, I'd have to feel a real and present danger.

    Did you feel like there was a "real and present danger" 9/10/2001.Secondly no intelligence is ever 100% positive proof.

    Saddam was no more likely to sell these alleged WMDs to terrorists than he was in the years prior to the invasion. Meaning if he had them and wanted to sell them to attack America, he would have. And yet, not once have we been attacked, and we've not foiled any plots to drop WMDs into a major city, either.

    First off I believe our Military and law Enforcement officials and President Bush deserve credit for making that happen.How many Americans would have thought 5 years down the road we have not suffered from another Terroist attack in this country. I also think because of that we as Americans have do have a false sense of security and think we are safer then we really are.If Local law enforcement or the Government released all the threats that we recieved on a daily basis such as Terroist group Hamas to target buses and subways it would be enough to cause panic and nobody would leave the house.

    What you're asking me to believe is that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs, and either destroyed them instead of proliferating them to West-hating terrorists, or that he hid them and the factories they were made in so well that we've not found them after 5 years of looking. Or, you're asking me to believe that he got rid of them to terrorists who have not once tried to use them on us in the last 5 years.

    Im not asking you to believe anything. What im saying was the guy had 12yrs from 91-2003 to do whatever he wanted with those weapons.Maybe he destoyed it, maybe he sold if off to terroist groups, maybe right before the invasion he shipped it off to Syria.I personally don't know but for people to say that Bush knowingly lied about WMD isn't fair at all.

    Sorry, that's too big a string of unlikely coincidences for me to follow.[/quote
    If he had 12 years to do something with these mythical WMDs and didn't, then where is the big threat? Certainly not enough to warrant a war of aggression, a pre-emptive strike, if you will.

    No, I didn't feel there was a "real and present danger" from Saddam Hussein on 9/11/2001. I felt we suffered a catastrophic terrorist attack due to a breakdown in our intelligence network, combined with very, very lax security compared to most of the world. None of that has anything to do with Saddam and Iraq. If you want to claim he was funnelling money to terrorists, fine, but he's not the only dictator/state supporting terror, and yet we haven't invaded anyone else yet, nor even spoken of it.

    I work for local law enforcement, and I see and distribute every single statewide/nationwide broadcast for the state of Indiana, including heightened awareness around airports, railroads, and public areas. I'm not going to tell you what has/hasn't crossed my console, but it's far, far, far less than you think. Not even enough to make me blink, or stop to think about it when I decide to travel. Good bluff, though. That one must work wonders on other people.

    Believe me, if the FBI/CIA thwarted a terrorist attempt, you can bet on it that they'd have the guys on national TV like prize-winning fishermen, because it would be a success story and re-inforcement of why we're fighting the war on terror, something that a lot of people need reminding from time to time.

    On intelligence: Bush took one report from I think it was Israeli intelligence via Africa and decided to invade a foreign country. So, 1 piece of 3rd hand intelligence is what pushed us to launch a pre-emptive strike while simultaneously curbing our efforts to snuff out terrorism in Afghanistan and also catch the most wanted man in modern history. I never said Bush lied, if I'd felt he'd flat-out lied, I'd be talking about impeachment. I think that they took a flimsy piece of intelligence and behaved like they'd caught Saddam with his pants down.

  9. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    [QUOTE=Eindar;536707]
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_D View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    If he had 12 years to do something with these mythical WMDs and didn't, then where is the big threat? Certainly not enough to warrant a war of aggression, a pre-emptive strike, if you will.
    "Mythical WMDs?" Maybe, maybe not, I don't know and you don't either. What we do know is that our entire national security machinery, including the incompetent, politicized CIA, thought otherwise, thought in fact that WMDs did exist in Iraq, were indeed a "slam dunk" as George Tenet advised the President.


    I work for local law enforcement, and I see and distribute every single statewide/nationwide broadcast for the state of Indiana, including heightened awareness around airports, railroads, and public areas. I'm not going to tell you what has/hasn't crossed my console, but it's far, far, far less than you think. Not even enough to make me blink, or stop to think about it when I decide to travel. Good bluff, though. That one must work wonders on other people.

    Believe me, if the FBI/CIA thwarted a terrorist attempt, you can bet on it that they'd have the guys on national TV like prize-winning fishermen, because it would be a success story and re-inforcement of why we're fighting the war on terror, something that a lot of people need reminding from time to time.
    Maybe that information did not come over your computer monitor, wherever it is in Indiana that you work in local law enforcement, but forgive me for not being impressed if the Shelby or Johnson or Clinton or whatever County Sheriff's Office you work in is not privy to all intelligence all around the world. No doubt your job is very important, but that doesn't mean you are exactly at Terrorist Prevention Central.

    And I do not believe you that, if a terrorist plot was thwarted, the FBI and CIA would necessarily be hawking it on TV or that it would have come across your computer monitor. In fact, what we have been told is that there is a great deal of such thwarting that has not been publicized, because doing so would tip off the terrorists on how we caught them. (That is, if the NYT hasn't already published the techniques over the President's fevered pleading that they not do so -- the NYT knows best, after all). I do believe that, in the future, we will learn about lots of successes against terrorism which was suppressed by the Bush Administration, even if its disclosure would have aided it in defending against unfair attacks such as the one you are making, because to have revealed such information would have cost us in the future.

    No, the boasting of terrorist plot foiling was the province of the Clinton administration, which took credit -- even though it had nothing to do with the event -- after an alert border guard foiled the Millenium Plot. Remember that one? That is the one where the Clintonites took credit for something they had nothing to do with -- its the same event that Sandy Berger stole confidential documents from the archives and smuggled them out in his underwear, and later cut them up with scissors so that no American could know what he and Bill Clinton had written in the margins.

    We know that the national security machinery of several other nations, including Great Britain and France, also thought Saddam had WMDs. We know that prominent Democrats thought so, and said so at the time and earlier -- see Clinton's and Gore's remarks in the late 90's. Everyone who had access to the best existing intelligence believed, as Bush did, that Iraq and Saddam had WMDs. But several years later, and after WMDs were not found -- in a war debated on the front pages of the NYT for a full year before we moved in Iraq, during which year intelligence reports showed lots of caravaning to Syria -- you and others ignore the statements identical to Bush's such as Clinton and Gore and many others, and call Bush a "liar." Speaking of liars, Joe Wilson's claim that he had investigated Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons precursor yellowcake uranium from Nigeria and had found none turned out to be contrary to what he reported to the CIA. Sure, no Democrat lie on the NYT editorial page is not worth telling during the electoral season, but lost in the Plame hoax was the fact that Iraq was found to have tried to obtain yellowcake from Nigeria. Did you ever wonder what Iraq wanted that yellowcake for, Eindar? Probably some innocent, civilian, non-WMD reason, right?

    You call them "mythical," and that is easy for you to claim now, in the comfort of your parents' basement or wherever, but what makes you so certain WMD never existed in Iraq, and what say you to the confident assertion by trained intelligence professionals in several countries who reported otherwise? If Bush "lied" when he did nothing more than believe the reports he was given by intelligence professionals, why are Clinton and Gore never said to be liars by those on the left, when Clinton and Gore made precisely the same claims as did Bush?

    Saddam had to be removed, period. We made a huge mistake in not removing him after the Gulf War (when Bush I accepted the flawed advice of St. Colin). Yet you, military expert that you must be, tell us that a war "of aggression" was not necessary, that there was no "real threat" from Iraq. How many people does a tyrant get to slaughter, how much terrorism does he sponsor, before Field Marshal Eindar thinks the tyrant "necessary" to remove? This is 20-20 hindsight, and, by the way, as shown by the CNN report of Gov. Locke's Democrat response to Bush's 2003 SOTU address, substantially different from what Dems were saying only a few years ago, when they agreed that Bush had done the right thing with Saddam.

  10. #35

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    [QUOTE=Bat Boy;537136]
    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    "Mythical WMDs?" Maybe, maybe not, I don't know and you don't either. What we do know is that our entire national security machinery, including the incompetent, politicized CIA, thought otherwise, thought in fact that WMDs did exist in Iraq, were indeed a "slam dunk" as George Tenet advised the President.


    Maybe that information did not come over your computer monitor, wherever it is in Indiana that you work in local law enforcement, but forgive me for not being impressed if the Shelby or Johnson or Clinton or whatever County Sheriff's Office you work in is not privy to all intelligence all around the world. No doubt your job is very important, but that doesn't mean you are exactly at Terrorist Prevention Central.

    And I do not believe you that, if a terrorist plot was thwarted, the FBI and CIA would necessarily be hawking it on TV or that it would have come across your computer monitor. In fact, what we have been told is that there is a great deal of such thwarting that has not been publicized, because doing so would tip off the terrorists on how we caught them. (That is, if the NYT hasn't already published the techniques over the President's fevered pleading that they not do so -- the NYT knows best, after all). I do believe that, in the future, we will learn about lots of successes against terrorism which was suppressed by the Bush Administration, even if its disclosure would have aided it in defending against unfair attacks such as the one you are making, because to have revealed such information would have cost us in the future.

    No, the boasting of terrorist plot foiling was the province of the Clinton administration, which took credit -- even though it had nothing to do with the event -- after an alert border guard foiled the Millenium Plot. Remember that one? That is the one where the Clintonites took credit for something they had nothing to do with -- its the same event that Sandy Berger stole confidential documents from the archives and smuggled them out in his underwear, and later cut them up with scissors so that no American could know what he and Bill Clinton had written in the margins.

    We know that the national security machinery of several other nations, including Great Britain and France, also thought Saddam had WMDs. We know that prominent Democrats thought so, and said so at the time and earlier -- see Clinton's and Gore's remarks in the late 90's. Everyone who had access to the best existing intelligence believed, as Bush did, that Iraq and Saddam had WMDs. But several years later, and after WMDs were not found -- in a war debated on the front pages of the NYT for a full year before we moved in Iraq, during which year intelligence reports showed lots of caravaning to Syria -- you and others ignore the statements identical to Bush's such as Clinton and Gore and many others, and call Bush a "liar." Speaking of liars, Joe Wilson's claim that he had investigated Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons precursor yellowcake uranium from Nigeria and had found none turned out to be contrary to what he reported to the CIA. Sure, no Democrat lie on the NYT editorial page is not worth telling during the electoral season, but lost in the Plame hoax was the fact that Iraq was found to have tried to obtain yellowcake from Nigeria. Did you ever wonder what Iraq wanted that yellowcake for, Eindar? Probably some innocent, civilian, non-WMD reason, right?

    You call them "mythical," and that is easy for you to claim now, in the comfort of your parents' basement or wherever, but what makes you so certain WMD never existed in Iraq, and what say you to the confident assertion by trained intelligence professionals in several countries who reported otherwise? If Bush "lied" when he did nothing more than believe the reports he was given by intelligence professionals, why are Clinton and Gore never said to be liars by those on the left, when Clinton and Gore made precisely the same claims as did Bush?

    Saddam had to be removed, period. We made a huge mistake in not removing him after the Gulf War (when Bush I accepted the flawed advice of St. Colin). Yet you, military expert that you must be, tell us that a war "of aggression" was not necessary, that there was no "real threat" from Iraq. How many people does a tyrant get to slaughter, how much terrorism does he sponsor, before Field Marshal Eindar thinks the tyrant "necessary" to remove? This is 20-20 hindsight, and, by the way, as shown by the CNN report of Gov. Locke's Democrat response to Bush's 2003 SOTU address, substantially different from what Dems were saying only a few years ago, when they agreed that Bush had done the right thing with Saddam.
    My parent's basement? Yep, I'm done with you, and hopefully this board is too. Been nice knowing you.

  11. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by Bat Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You call them "mythical," and that is easy for you to claim now, in the comfort of your parents' basement or wherever, but what makes you so certain WMD never existed in Iraq, and what say you to the confident assertion by trained intelligence professionals in several countries who reported otherwise?
    Pretty slimy, my friend, pretty uncalled for.

    As for WMD, we thought they had them because Reagan gave him WMDs. Also, we know for SURE that there were WMDs in Iraq, but they were under seal by the inspectors. Of course, after we launched the war they were stolen because we didn't bother to place guards at the sites. We were too busy protecting the oil ministry. What we DO know for sure, and what the CIA repeatedly told the administration was the Iraq posed no threat to the US militarily, WMD or no.

  12. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Woodside,NY
    Age
    32
    Posts
    281

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    [quote=Eindar;536707]
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_D View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    If he had 12 years to do something with these mythical WMDs and didn't, then where is the big threat? Certainly not enough to warrant a war of aggression, a pre-emptive strike, if you will.

    So what it took 8 years for the Terroists to strike the WTC after the first strike.Time has nothing to do with it.We were just attacked after 9/11.Saddam was thought to have WMD and if that was the case it was reasonable to expect that Saddam could have armed them with WMD since he had the motive to do it.Everybody also forgets that Saddam could have easily avoided war, by giving the weapons inspectors full access of course he didn't do it.He had a full year while we were at the UN to get his *** into shape he refused.

    No, I didn't feel there was a "real and present danger" from Saddam Hussein on 9/11/2001. I felt we suffered a catastrophic terrorist attack due to a breakdown in our intelligence network, combined with very, very lax security compared to most of the world. None of that has anything to do with Saddam and Iraq. If you want to claim he was funnelling money to terrorists, fine, but he's not the only dictator/state supporting terror, and yet we haven't invaded anyone else yet, nor even spoken of it.

    Not only was Saddam funnelling money to Terroists he has terroist training camps in his own country.Of course the media very rarely if ever mentions that. Saddam also had his Fedayeen militia that he trained and used terroist tactics.Your right Saddam isn't the only one funneling, arming training terroists so is Iran, Syria and your right we should take them out, we should also take out the people who are arming them of course those in the extreme left/anti war crowd would be crying about invading or attacking the countries I just mentioned


    I work for local law enforcement, and I see and distribute every single statewide/nationwide broadcast for the state of Indiana, including heightened awareness around airports, railroads, and public areas. I'm not going to tell you what has/hasn't crossed my console, but it's far, far, far less than you think. Not even enough to make me blink, or stop to think about it when I decide to travel. Good bluff, though. That one must work wonders on other people.

    What Bluff??? I know what I have seen, I know what I have heard through close friends in intelligence, I know I have been deployed in certain areas my city because of CT threats relating to a specific target.Say what you want but I will stand by what I said that we recieve threats on a daily basis and few if any are ever reported to the media.

    Believe me, if the FBI/CIA thwarted a terrorist attempt, you can bet on it that they'd have the guys on national TV like prize-winning fishermen, because it would be a success story and re-inforcement of why we're fighting the war on terror, something that a lot of people need reminding from time to time.

    On intelligence: Bush took one report from I think it was Israeli intelligence via Africa and decided to invade a foreign country. So, 1 piece of 3rd hand intelligence is what pushed us to launch a pre-emptive strike while simultaneously curbing our efforts to snuff out terrorism in Afghanistan and also catch the most wanted man in modern history. I never said Bush lied, if I'd felt he'd flat-out lied, I'd be talking about impeachment. I think that they took a flimsy piece of intelligence and behaved like they'd caught Saddam with his pants down.
    so are you telling me that France, Germany, British, Austrialia,Russia and all the other countries that believed Saddam had WMD were all foolish to believe that Israeli intelligence report. John Kerry pointed out he thought Saddam had WMD, So did Bill Clinton and didn't he use air strikes on Iraq I forget the exact time frame to disable Saddams WMD arsenal.My point is alot of countries and smart politicans all thought the exact same thing you are criticizing Bush for.Almost everybody on this planet thought he had WMD's

  13. #38
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    [quote=mike_D;537750]
    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    so are you telling me that France, Germany, British, Austrialia,Russia and all the other countries that believed Saddam had WMD were all foolish to believe that Israeli intelligence report. John Kerry pointed out he thought Saddam had WMD, So did Bill Clinton and didn't he use air strikes on Iraq I forget the exact time frame to disable Saddams WMD arsenal.My point is alot of countries and smart politicans all thought the exact same thing you are criticizing Bush for.Almost everybody on this planet thought he had WMD's

    Enquiries in the UK parliament have shown that the data provided to the governement was "polished" to "appear" threatening, whilst it was not at all.

    People have lost their jobs over it and more are to lose their jobs over it.
    In actual fact people have lost their life over it, and not just the military.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  14. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    [QUOTE=Eindar;537641]
    Quote Originally Posted by Bat Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    My parent's basement? Yep, I'm done with you, and hopefully this board is too. Been nice knowing you.
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Pretty slimy, my friend, pretty uncalled for.
    1) Eindar: I apologize.
    2) Eindar and 3Ball: If you are truly that offended by that jokingly-intended description of 20-20 hindsight (rather than, say, an inability or unwillingness to respond to the actual points made in the post), you might wish to re-examine the tone you routinely take in posts.

  15. #40

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    [QUOTE=Bat Boy;537938]
    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote



    1) Eindar: I apologize.
    2) Eindar and 3Ball: If you are truly that offended by that jokingly-intended description of 20-20 hindsight (rather than, say, an inability or unwillingness to respond to the actual points made in the post), you might wish to re-examine the tone you routinely take in posts.
    There's a difference between taking an aggressive stance on an issue and personally attacking someone without knowing a thing about them. If you can't see the difference, I don't think you should be posting here. If you need help, I'm sure the moderators would be more than happy to help you with what is and isn't acceptable conduct.

  16. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    There's a difference between taking an aggressive stance on an issue and personally attacking someone without knowing a thing about them. If you can't see the difference, I don't think you should be posting here. If you need help, I'm sure the moderators would be more than happy to help you with what is and isn't acceptable conduct.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And that's another thing. Why does it always have to be left vs. right? Can't I just be a human being that happens to think my president is an idiot?
    You personally attack the president, calling him variously an "idiot", a "liar", etc., and yet you regard this to be merely "taking an aggressive stance on an issue," even on a controversial topic such as WMD, about which there was solid consensus that Iraq did have them, and absolute puzzlement over why they were later not found. You would pretend that, from wherever your safe perch in 2007, you have more info than did the intelligence specialists who said otherwise about WMD in 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2003. You do so with absolute confidence, absolute certainty, and anyone who thought otherwise back then is a liar and an idiot in your own words. Yet when someone makes a fairly mild jest to illustrate how easy it is to take retrospective pot shots against public figures from the safety of the "parents' basement", oh my! How you have been wronged! Now its personal, the line got crossed! And its slimy too! Call the moderators!

    I think you have a perfect right to have these feelings and opinions, and to express them. I also think that if you do so, in the vicious and nasty way you often do, you look pretty funny claiming your feelings get hurt by a single line in a long post the arguments of which you thereby avoid answering.

    Again, go back and re-read your posts. There is NO difference between what you routinely engage in and what you complain about.

  17. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    From the beginning, the whole WMD thing was phony. That's why they called them WMDs. The term "weapons of mass destruction" brings to mind nuclear weapons, which is the intention. What we actually thought Iraq had was a few moldy cannisters of mustard gas that Reagan gave him. Nothing that posed a threat to the United States. It was incredibly misleading and intentionally so.

  18. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    From the beginning, the whole WMD thing was phony. That's why they called them WMDs. The term "weapons of mass destruction" brings to mind nuclear weapons, which is the intention. What we actually thought Iraq had was a few moldy cannisters of mustard gas that Reagan gave him. Nothing that posed a threat to the United States. It was incredibly misleading and intentionally so.
    Got it. 3Ball, who objects to vituperative postings, even where it isn't vituperative, has just called the president and the administration liars. Of course, he did not use that particluar term, instead he said they gave "intentionally" "incredibly misleading" information about "phony" WMDs.

    Of course, the entire kerfluffle about Joe Wilson's NYT editorial which (falsely and misleadingly, according to a bipartisan U.S. Senate report, as well as the reporting of many news reports) claimed Iraq was NOT trying to obtain yellowcake uranium -- which Iraq would ONLY use for WMDs, of the nuclear, non-mustard gas variety -- would suggest that the WMD issue was the farthest thing from phony. The CIA claims Wilson briefed them contrary to what he wrote in his infamous oped, and the CIA and British intelligence STILL maintain to this day that Iraq was seeking nuclear-bomb-making materials from Niger.

    But, did the definition of "WMD" change sometime between the time Clinton was president -- in which time he and Al Gore and many prominent elected Dems claimed Iraq had WMDs, and the UN was in the midst of a decades-long series of ineffective and impotent "resolutions" against Iraq, and Iraq had banished weapons inspectors -- and the time Bush was elected? Over the past 10 years, there is an unbroken thread of American political officials, spanning administrations headed by different political parties, who had far superior access to security intelligence than you or Eindar or any of the other confident proponents of the "WMDs did not exist" claims who believed and publicly stated otherwise. Yet you selectively forget about the Dems' identical claims, and you claim that only the Bush administration was lying (oops!, I mean "intentionally and incredibly misleading" the American people) about.

    If you refuse to discuss the facts accurately, what shall we make of your conclusions?

  19. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Someone else has joined my bandwagon! And with a much better idea than I had! From a wonderful column on football:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...erbrook/070130

    What Lies Beneath: Last week the British Medical Journal, a technical publication, released a survey in which physicians said sewers, not antibiotics or vaccines, were the greatest public health advance of the last two centuries. Those who live in the favored cities of the West should never take sanitation for granted. The construction of sewage systems in European and American cities, beginning in the late 19th century, dramatically lowered rates of disease, to say nothing of making cities more livable; lowered disease in turn helped Western nations grow more productive and affluent. Today much of the developing world is held back by the fact that its citizens are often sick, and thus not productive. Open conduits of sewage run down the streets of many large developing-world cities; raw sewage pours directly into the Ganges, where bathers are supposed to go for purification rites. In many developing nations the number-one need is clean water: clean drinking water, buried sewer systems and modern wastewater treatment plants. The United States appears to have wasted nearly $1 trillion in Iraq. That sum could have brought modern public sanitation to the 25 largest cities of the developing world, and made America the hero of the world's poor for generations.

  20. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by Bat Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Got it. 3Ball, who objects to vituperative postings, even where it isn't vituperative, has just called the president and the administration liars. Of course, he did not use that particluar term, instead he said they gave "intentionally" "incredibly misleading" information about "phony" WMDs.
    Batboy, This is just weird. I did object to you insulting a fellow poster, especially when you made personal remarks that you know nothing about. That was classless. I'm talking about a public official with information in the public record. The term WMD is misleading, but it was only the Bush administration who used to to mislead the country into war. Blair was just as much of a liar, and I think there is plenty of documentation to prove that as well. Yes, France and the others thought there were "WMDs" (a few moldy canisters of mustard gas given to him by Reagan), but could see as well as anyone that Iraq was no military threat. Even Iraq's neighbors who he invaded didn't want war.

    I don't mind if you call me "uninformed" or even "totally wrong", and I certainly don't mind if you accuse congressional democrats of whatever. But I really do object to you going after posters in slimy ways.

  21. #46

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't mind if you call me "uninformed" or even "totally wrong"
    You are uninformed. You are totally wrong.




    That felt good.



    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  22. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,259

    Smile Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You are uninformed. You are totally wrong.




    That felt good.



    .
    Not the first, won't be the last!

  23. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Ball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Batboy, This is just weird. I did object to you insulting a fellow poster, especially when you made personal remarks that you know nothing about. That was classless. I'm talking about a public official with information in the public record. The term WMD is misleading, but it was only the Bush administration who used to to mislead the country into war. Blair was just as much of a liar, and I think there is plenty of documentation to prove that as well. Yes, France and the others thought there were "WMDs" (a few moldy canisters of mustard gas given to him by Reagan), but could see as well as anyone that Iraq was no military threat. Even Iraq's neighbors who he invaded didn't want war.

    I don't mind if you call me "uninformed" or even "totally wrong", and I certainly don't mind if you accuse congressional democrats of whatever. But I really do object to you going after posters in slimy ways.
    You are right. It is weird. You -- and others -- seem to believe that you can say whatever you wish about a public figure, call them dishonest, liars, corrupt, whatever, and that is just fine (certainly not "classless" or "slimy") because "I'm talking about a public official with information in the public record." Maybe, but part of that public record is that lots of Dems used the same term and said the same thing -- Clinton and others claimed Saddam had and potentially imperiled us with WMDs. Oh, but they didn't say it in the context of leading us to war, as if that makes any difference -- the point is, they said it, they presumably believed it, and they utilized the same intelligence (evidently incorrect intelligence, but we still don't know for sure) as did Bush, yet you claim Bush and Blair were "liars." Well, public official or not, that is a "personal remark." And your sophistic insistence on distinguishing it when Bush and Blair said it from when Clinton and Gore said it is intellectual dishonesty.

    As is your nitpicking comment as somehow too personal about a jocular point made to Eindar. If you are going to throw stones on the size you throw, you need to cowboy up and lose the indignant tone over tossed pebbles.

  24. #49

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by Bat Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You personally attack the president, calling him variously an "idiot", a "liar", etc., and yet you regard this to be merely "taking an aggressive stance on an issue," even on a controversial topic such as WMD, about which there was solid consensus that Iraq did have them, and absolute puzzlement over why they were later not found. You would pretend that, from wherever your safe perch in 2007, you have more info than did the intelligence specialists who said otherwise about WMD in 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2003. You do so with absolute confidence, absolute certainty, and anyone who thought otherwise back then is a liar and an idiot in your own words. Yet when someone makes a fairly mild jest to illustrate how easy it is to take retrospective pot shots against public figures from the safety of the "parents' basement", oh my! How you have been wronged! Now its personal, the line got crossed! And its slimy too! Call the moderators!

    I think you have a perfect right to have these feelings and opinions, and to express them. I also think that if you do so, in the vicious and nasty way you often do, you look pretty funny claiming your feelings get hurt by a single line in a long post the arguments of which you thereby avoid answering.

    Again, go back and re-read your posts. There is NO difference between what you routinely engage in and what you complain about.
    Have you ever actually read the Rules of Pacers' Digest? You should. There's nothing forbidding me from, one time, referring to Bush as an "idiot". Were I to do nothing but sit here and badmouth Bush every single time I get a chance to forward my own agenda, just like you do with the entire democratic Party, liberals, and anyone else not sharing your own hyper-conservative views, then yes, that would be breaking the rules. There are, however, rules forbidding personal attacks on other posters. I got a private apology, but you sure as hell don't really seem contrite. In fact, you seem intent on dragging this argument to an ugly conclusion.

    Maybe you should go back and re-read your own posts. You constantly and consistently break the rules of these boards, both in the general sense, and also the Politics-specific rules, and I've yet to see you be punished. To me, the only difference between you and Sassan is that you're more eloquent in your delivery.

    I told you I'm done with you, and I am. I'm putting you on ignore, AGAIN. Maybe I'll take you back off in another six months to see if you've reformed.

  25. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Have you ever actually read the Rules of Pacers' Digest? You should. There's nothing forbidding me from, one time, referring to Bush as an "idiot". Were I to do nothing but sit here and badmouth Bush every single time I get a chance to forward my own agenda, just like you do with the entire democratic Party, liberals, and anyone else not sharing your own hyper-conservative views, then yes, that would be breaking the rules. There are, however, rules forbidding personal attacks on other posters. I got a private apology, but you sure as hell don't really seem contrite. In fact, you seem intent on dragging this argument to an ugly conclusion.

    Maybe you should go back and re-read your own posts. You constantly and consistently break the rules of these boards, both in the general sense, and also the Politics-specific rules, and I've yet to see you be punished. To me, the only difference between you and Sassan is that you're more eloquent in your delivery.

    I told you I'm done with you, and I am. I'm putting you on ignore, AGAIN. Maybe I'll take you back off in another six months to see if you've reformed.
    Unbelievable. You pretend to see no distinction whatsoever in your name calling of the president, Tony Blair and other persons -- anything goes because they are public officials. You can sit back and, as you and others have done repeatedly, call him false and disparaging names ("idiot", "drunk", "liar" etc.), and in your mind that is proper conduct and fair game and in perfect compliance with PD rules. Yes, I have read the PD rules, and I am surprised that you view your own conduct as fine and mine as in violation.

    It does not even cross your mind that calling others names without backing up the facts can be as offensive to some of us as if you wrote the same things about individual posters. I have made some tough posts about public officials -- for example, I have written that Bill Clinton was a serial liar and other things while in the White House, and there is an ample public record and judicial findings to support that. The difference here is that there is no such public record, there remains a great deal that is unknown about the intelligence for going to war (other than much of it was incorrect, which is not the same thing as saying, as you and others wish to insist, that it was a lie).

    Let me be specific here, because you seem not to get it: I do not believe President Bush is an "idiot." I do not think you literally believe that either, and instead that you are using that term as nothing more than an insult. Fine, but stop pretending your post is other than name-calling. I do not believe President Bush is a drunk. I do believe -- because he said so during his campaign -- that he had a drinking problem and that he took affirmative steps to deal with it, namely to give it up. If he was formerly a drunk but has not had a drink in years, it might make a very nice insult, but it is factually false to persist in calling him that if he has not taken a drink in a decade. And for you to accuse him of intentionally misleading the American people for purposes of his own political advantage and re-electability concerning the WMD and other questions is to call him a liar, as many on here have done explicitly. I do not believe he did any of these things, and have said so based on facts. You have refused to engage on those facts and sulk away.

    Your defense to such conduct is to claim that, because you don't do so in every single post, there is nothing wrong with it. Well, no, not as a first amendment matter -- you have a right to build entire arguments around boorish name-calling -- but you seem offended that such arguments are found lacking or that your unwillingness (or more likely inability) to defend them is pointed out, as here. Am I wrong? Prove it: respond to the arguments on the merits.

    When your actual postions are challenged -- in the course of which you are teased with the suggestion that your posts are so much tough talking 20-20 hindsight from the safety of your parents' basement, or that your special claim to national security intelligence because you work somewhere, in some unspecified capacity in some Indiana law enforcement office may not be quite the same thing as making you privy to NSA information -- suddenly your feelings are hurt and you hit the ignore button, but only after inviting the moderators to weigh in and punish the baddy.

    In several posts you never answer the actual argument about how it can be that all the Dems who said the same thing as Bush about Saddam and WMDs get a free pass from you, yet you call Bush and now Blair liars. Such refusal to discuss the merits, and insistence on sulking away and summoning monitors and hitting ignore etc. is your right, but do not think it is a substitute for actually arguing the facts.

    You are correct that I apologized, in private and in public, for a post that apparently hurt your feelings. I was and am truly sorry for hurting your feelings. But I would be less than honest if I did not tell you that I am also having trouble understanding how someone who so easily engages in name calling of public figures, and who refuses to explain or defend such conduct on the facts, can nonetheless claim to be so tender hearted when the rebuttal stings. But there is a great deal I don't understand here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •