T1B

Classic.

A protest organized June 1 by MoveOn, a liberal political action committee, drew about 20 people to the Michigan Avenue office of U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton. Demonstrators protested Rogers’ ties to embattled House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

There was only one problem: They had the wrong Mike Rogers.

Whoops.

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/050608/ ... rogers.asp

I'm guessing this isn't going to help Dean's fundraising efforts much.

Hate and rage usually result in bad decisions.

DrDetroit wrote:Hate and rage usually result in bad decisions.

A theory that explains our Iraq policy quite excellently. Nothing like revenge for poppy to drive the centerpeice of your foriegn policy.

You were saying about liberals?

Oh yea, something about hate and rage.

Of course I would ask what is so bad about hate and rage when it is directed at bad government on either side of the aisle? Your own Barry Goldwater once said something on the subject eh?

"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue."

Damn you're an idiot. According to you Dubya invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam because he was seeking revenge for an attempt on his dad's life? And not because Hussein was pursuing wmd's, sponsoring and supporting terrorism, murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, and violating 12 years of UN resolutions, eh?

That's your argument? Well, you are an emotional elitist liberal loser...so I'm not surprised.

DrDetroit wrote:and violating 12 years of UN resolutions, eh?

I thought the US hated the UN. Now we rely on them as a reason for war?

Guess that's kinda like the administration using Amnesty International and then saying they've never had credibility. Love that Dubyaspeak.

We hate the United Nations?

Why do you resort to blatant lies to try to make a point?

And when did the Bush Administration say that Amnesty International never had credibility?

Again, why do you resort to lying?

Well?

What you really tried to do, to follow the Left's talking points, is to suggest that Bush was being inconsistent or hypocritical when he called AI's "gulag" bullshit "absurd" because Bush had previously cited AI's reports on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc.

The funny thing though is that there is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in characterizing AI being right in one instance yet wrong in another.

So, douche...please stop lying. Why do you hate honesty?

Indeed. Honesty is all the rage!

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Indeed. Honesty is all the rage!

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

:roll:

What a load of bullshit.

Yet another fascist incapable of confronting the truth. How shocking.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

What about the Downing Street memo? Besides a two-and-a-half year story being resurrected to slander Bush and demand that Bush be impeached??

I am surprised that B didn't post what is really considered the supposed smoking gun part of that document that "proves" Bush manufactured intelligence data... :roll:

Then again...not surprised that heresay thrice removed causes such a furor on the Left...LOL!!

Bwaahahahahaaaa!!!

Ah, so the new party link is "that's old news"???

Uh, OK. :roll:

Party lin"e", not party lin"k", right??

What prior party line are you alleging to have existed re: this memo??

Also, the "line", if there is to be one, isn't that it's old news. It's thrice removed heresay. It's the impression of someone else'e impression of what someone else thought Bush was thinking.

In a word, "irrelevant."

You guys really know how to push them pedals.

Your very insistence (oft discarded where necessary) that the Iraq War was not the goal of the GWB administration is nothing short of laughable.

PSU, quit being such a vague little twat.

What do you mean by "goal?"

Regime change in Iraq had been US policy since 1998. Candidate Bush during the campaign expressed that he would pursue that policy goal.

So what's your point?

I don't see anyone saying that Bush was not going to pursue regime change in Iraq...do you?

Quit arguing with yourself.

Variable wrote:Classic.

A protest organized June 1 by MoveOn, a liberal political action committee, drew about 20 people to the Michigan Avenue office of U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton. Demonstrators protested Rogers’ ties to embattled House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

There was only one problem: They had the wrong Mike Rogers.

Whoops.

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/050608/ ... rogers.asp

I'm guessing this isn't going to help Dean's fundraising efforts much.

Twenty whole people?

Pretty powerful organization.

BSmack wrote:Saddam was not threatening his neighbours

No, he was too busy butchering his own people.


sin,


every mass grave occupant.

ChargerMike wrote:

BSmack wrote:Saddam was not threatening his neighbours

No, he was too busy butchering his own people.

sin,

every mass grave occupant.

What about us?

sin

The Sudan

BSmack wrote:

ChargerMike wrote:

BSmack wrote:Saddam was not threatening his neighbours

No, he was too busy butchering his own people.

sin,

every mass grave occupant.

What about us?

sin

The Sudan

Let me know when Sudan joins OPEC, m'kay?

What about us?

sin

The Sudan

Bush can't. The left will insist he be brought up on charges as a war criminal again for invading a "sovereign nation."

They'll probably also tag him a "racist" for continually invading nations populated by people of color. Hell, if Bush used the Army to liberate Rwanda after the Sudan, that'd be two black countries in a row. Jesse Jackson would show up in Africa to proclaim, "If the land's filled with spades, Bush will invade!" :D

I'm gonna guess Bush will steer clear of invading any nation that gets labeled "sovereign", at least until he figures out what the word means.

BSmack wrote:

ChargerMike wrote:

BSmack wrote:Saddam was not threatening his neighbours

No, he was too busy butchering his own people.

sin,

every mass grave occupant.

What about us?

sin

The Sudan

Once again we have a lefty just being his typical intellectual dishonest self.

The US did not invade Iraq only because Saddam was butchering hundreds of thousands of people.

Why is it that the left refuses to assess the entire case Bush made for war and instead choose to attack each factor as though it was in a vacuum??

Dishonest, much?

DrDetroit wrote:Once again we have a lefty just being his typical intellectual dishonest self. The US did not invade Iraq only because Saddam was butchering hundreds of thousands of people. Why is it that the left refuses to assess the entire case Bush made for war and instead choose to attack each factor as though it was in a vacuum?? Dishonest, much?

Oh, I can generalize just as much as you. Anybody with a clue knows that Bush had more than one reason for attacking Iraq. In fact, here's a few off the top of my head.

1. Avenge Daddy
2. Generate business for campaign contributors
3. Establish American hegemony in the middle east
4. Divert public attention from the Saudis who actualy fund al Queda
5. Divert public attention from the shitty ass economy
6. Divert public attention from the train wreck that is our North Korea policy

There's just a few.

I can see you making an argument for the first four, but these are just dumb.

Divert public attention from the shitty ass economy

Clinton's internet bubble bursting is Dubya's fault? Clinton's policies that resulted in WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing, etc, is Dubya's fault? Two planes slamming into the WTC is Dubya's fault? No, none of them are and all of them have been significant negative factors on the economy, so it's doing quite well considering. Clinton should consider himself lucky that Bush didn't hang him out to dry for his administrations role in those messes. Many would have handled that differently, and justifiably so.

Divert public attention from the train wreck that is our North Korea policy

Maybe we should go back to the honor system policy of the Clinton Administration. That was fucking stellar.

If you want to reach, you can make arguments for both...I guess...but saying that they're reasons we went to war is just really fucking stupid. You can do better than that.

BSmack wrote:Oh, I can generalize just as much as you.

Is this even a question of generalizing?? I wasn't generalizing re: the Left's attempts to undermine the rationale for this war by taking each reason Bush cited as part of the collective justification for war and considering it as though it was in a vacuum.

Anybody with a clue knows that Bush had more than one reason for attacking Iraq. In fact, here's a few off the top of my head.

1. Avenge Daddy
2. Generate business for campaign contributors
3. Establish American hegemony in the middle east
4. Divert public attention from the Saudis who actualy fund al Queda
5. Divert public attention from the shitty ass economy
6. Divert public attention from the train wreck that is our North Korea policy

There's just a few.

And he go...yet another lefty who cannot actually articulate a rationale argument opposing Bush's stated rationale so he's left to speculating about the guy's motives.

Why are you even compelled to go donw this road??

BTW: re: shitty economy...you can stop lying right now. The election is over, there is no reason to continue with the perpetual gloom and doom.

Re: North Korea...we have only Clinton and Albright to thank for that tragedy. They sold out to North Korea plain and simple.

Clinton's internet bubble bursting is Dubya's fault?

B refuses to acknowledge that economic growth started contracting in the last quarter of Clinton's second term.

Clinton's policies that resulted in WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing, etc, is Dubya's fault?

Clinton's policies didn't result in those commercial disasters. I thought you weren't "big ob spin?"

Two planes slamming into the WTC is Dubya's fault?

No, according to the Left that was America's fault. We instigated it and we got what we deserved.

DrDetroit wrote:Regime change in Iraq had been US policy since 1998. Candidate Bush during the campaign expressed that he would pursue that policy goal.

He also said he wasn't into nation-building. Guess his handlers cringed when he said that.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Regime change in Iraq had been US policy since 1998. Candidate Bush during the campaign expressed that he would pursue that policy goal.

He also said he wasn't into nation-building. Guess his handlers cringed when he said that.

Dishonest, much??

Bush didn't advocate nation-building as a matter of policy in and of itself. He did support regime change in Iraq which would necessarily mean assisting the country with rebuilding.

Compare and contrast our involvement in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, and then Afghanistan and Iraq.

Substantive distinctions I would suggest.

DrDetroit wrote:Dishonest, much??

No. Not at all. Then again, I guess honesty is a matter of spin.

You certainly can't be wrong because the people who produce your talkiung points memos are good honest folk who never try to cover their asses.

No, honesty is not a matter of spin. The only spin right here is you attempting to call Bush a hypocrite on the nation-building issue as you respond to a point being made about Bush's support for regime change in Iraq.

Oh, btw, the taking points nonsense that you run is just that...nonsense. You're unable to articulate a coherent and honest take so you either question a poster's motives or your simply charcaterize his posts as merely following the talking points.

This is why you consistently get punked around here. You're out of your element.

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Regime change in Iraq had been US policy since 1998. Candidate Bush during the campaign expressed that he would pursue that policy goal.

He also said he wasn't into nation-building. Guess his handlers cringed when he said that.

That's was before 9/11, fucktard.

And a bunch of Saudis hijacking some planes has what to do with nation building in Iraq?

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote: He also said he wasn't into nation-building. Guess his handlers cringed when he said that.

That's was before 9/11, fucktard.

And a bunch of Saudis hijacking some planes has what to do with nation building in Iraq?

What did Milosevic have to with the U.S.?

And here we go again with the intellectual dishonesty.

B, why are you compelled to be so dishonest? Are you simply incapable of articulating a reasonable argument?

You don't acknowledge that 9/11 necessarily changed the American perception of terrorism?

Taking guys like Saddam down prior to 9/11 just wan't a real priority for you Democrats. That should have changed post-9/11 now that we understand the threat that accompanies state sponsorship of terrorism and the ability of terrorists to attack the US as such as they on 9/11.

That you people don't understand this necessarily undermines any credibility you have on national security. That's why all you guys do now is slander President Bush and are not actually proposing reasonable and credible alternative policies to deal with terrorism specifically, and national security more generally.

Hapday wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: That's was before 9/11, fucktard.

And a bunch of Saudis hijacking some planes has what to do with nation building in Iraq?

What did Milosevic have to with the U.S.?

Well he just happened to be in the place where WWI was started...didn't you know?

Sin,
Clueless Democrats.

DrDetroit wrote:You don't acknowledge that 9/11 necessarily changed the American perception of terrorism?

That the Bush Administration has used 9-11 to justify their attacks does not make Iraq any more relevant to 9-11 than Outer Mongolia,

Taking guys like Saddam down prior to 9/11 just wan't a real priority for you Democrats. That should have changed post-9/11 now that we understand the threat that accompanies state sponsorship of terrorism and the ability of terrorists to attack the US as such as they on 9/11.

One problem with that line of thinking. Those towers were brought down by a bunch of rich Saudi students with box cutters. They were not state sponsored.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: That's was before 9/11, fucktard.

And a bunch of Saudis hijacking some planes has what to do with nation building in Iraq?

Who the fuck do you think we're fighting in Iraq?

Well d-uh!! The coalition is fighting against a bunch of freedom fighters.

Sincerely,

DemocRats

That the Bush Administration has used 9-11 to justify their attacks does not make Iraq any more relevant to 9-11 than Outer Mongolia,

OMG!!!

Idiot, 9/11, for the first time, clearly demonstrated that terrorists would use the capability to kill thousands of Americans in a big American city. The implication then was that if they would actually attack a large American city with airliners, what would stop them from attacking a large American city with wmd's.

WMD's are not developed by terror organizations, idiot, but nation-states. As Iraq was in violation of twelve years of UN sanctions re: wmd's, had used wmd's, and sponsored and supported al-queda terrorists the ratinale was that there was a clear threat that Saddam would transfer wmd's and wmd technology to al-queda.

It's not only a reasonable rationale, but plausible. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring wmd's or wmd technology to terrorists now...somethng that definitely would continue to linger as a threat if you guys were in Office.

One problem with that line of thinking. Those towers were brought down by a bunch of rich Saudi students with box cutters. They were not state sponsored.

Nonsense, idiot.

Where do you think they trained? Where do you think they got money from? What? We're to believe that their training in Afghanistan and Iraq was simply not known tothose respective governments???

DrDetroit wrote: Fortunately, we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring wmd's or wmd technology to terrorists now...somethng that definitely would continue to linger as a threat if you guys were in Office.

You mean we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring the WMDs they didn't possess to AQ?

Good to know, I'll sleep much better tonight.

DrDetroit wrote:OMG!!!

Wow, you really are a 14 year old girl.

Idiot, 9/11, for the first time, clearly demonstrated that terrorists would use the capability to kill thousands of Americans in a big American city. The implication then was that if they would actually attack a large American city with airliners, what would stop them from attacking a large American city with wmd's.

That is an excellent point. Of course it would stand to reason that we would then desire to confront nations that actualy HAD SOME WMDs.

WMD's are not developed by terror organizations, idiot, but nation-states. As Iraq was in violation of twelve years of UN sanctions re: wmd's, had used wmd's, and sponsored and supported al-queda terrorists the ratinale was that there was a clear threat that Saddam would transfer wmd's and wmd technology to al-queda.

Yet, if we read the Downing Street Memo, it is obvious that there was not WMD production going on in Iraq.

It's not only a reasonable rationale, but plausible. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring wmd's or wmd technology to terrorists now...somethng that definitely would continue to linger as a threat if you guys were in Office.

No it wasn't. The WMD lie was a convienent fiction.

Where do you think they trained?

In the United States you dolt. That's where they took their flying lessons, that's where they bought their box cutters and that's where they got their plane tickets.

Where do you think they got money from?

Rich Saudis.

What? We're to believe that their training in Afghanistan and Iraq was simply not known tothose respective governments???

They NEVER trained in Iraq.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:They NEVER trained in Iraq.

Shut the fuck up, moron.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... odada.html

And this Shaboom Shabah guy is what? Can you say Chalabi?