Grow up moron.
No wonder you're a 1 lot wonder in NQ.
Max Cleland, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton.
They take their orders from George Bush? Yea, right. Get a fucking clue.
Poll - Should Bush Be Impeached?
- Thread starter ByLoSellHi
- Start date
Grow up moron.
No wonder you're a 1 lot wonder in NQ.
Max Cleland, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton.
They take their orders from George Bush? Yea, right. Get a fucking clue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23sat1.html
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2518.shtml
Oh, and, no doubt, you've heard of Richard Clarke, right?
Pabst, as for your tone, and despite its endearing nature and your personal charm, you're slowly working your way out of my heart.
USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD.
Do you think the wife of a former President who happened to bomb Iraq was dependent on George Bush for direction?
Or military veterans in the Senate who for a couple of decades appropriated money to the military were dependent on Bush?
Or a guy who'd almost become Vice President needs George friggin' Bush's opinion?
Or the Labor Party PM of Great Britain listens to George Bush?
Vladimir Putin goes by Bush's (or any American's) "intelligence" briefings?
Yes my tone when conversing with IDIOTS is contemptuous and condescending. Sorry if the shoe fits. As far as personal stuff, yea I too think you're a VERY nice guy but like many others your face value cleverness masks your very average deductive reasoning capability.
If your point is that at this point no one listens to George Bush and the Republicans, I agree.
Too bad people used to.
Too bad people used to.
It would appear that we are not even talking about the same thing. I am talking about the "evidence" that was massaged at the behest of your president and then presented to everyone else.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/06/america/06intel.php
I'm not quite sure what you're carrying on about.
I do not doubt that you are more plugged in and aware than I am on matters relating to US politics. And I don't deny that I have developed something of a bias during the course of the Bush Administration. However, you seem to be favoring your Right leg so much that you can't help but walk in circles. You're a smart guy, Pabst, but your overwhelming and unyielding bias camouflages it remarkably well.
"Senator John Kerry said Monday that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda."
New York Times
August 10, 2004
Just saw that. However, to be fair, he also said, "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?'' he said. ''Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?''
Regardless, we are still not quite arguing about the same thing. Kerry was aware in 2004, when he made those remarks, that the intelligence was faulty. However, I don't recall the timing of when it came out that the evidence was not only "faulty," but intentionally skewed. I wonder if Kerry was yet aware of the massage factor and not only the error factor of the intelligence presented by the Administration. I think you will agree that willful deceit is a tad more malignant than honest human error.
One of the more perceptive comments around here as of late.
The same Leftie pacifists who screamed "war for oil!!" the past 5 years will APPLAUD Obama for going after "the real enemy". Forgetting of course that the history of Shite terror against the West is pretty much non-existent.
Since most Americans soon forgot that 30 other nations signed on with us in Iraq, Obama will be able to enlist a few "partners" and trumpet how he built a multi-lateral coalition. I see the threat of serious military engagement under Obama as 4x more likely than with McCain.
Tis T-Dog is why your ilk are ignorant. Kerry and the leading Democrats didn't care about the reason for removing Saddam any more than Bush did.
The REAL reason was Saddam's support of Hamas. Bush could've said Saddam was caught on tape jay walking and the vote would've been the same.
It's stupidity like one witnesses in these debates that's the reason things remain the same.
Two years from now gas will still be $4 a gallon, we'll be at war either in Iran or God forbid Pakistan and with Bush long retired to his ranch in Crawford the Left will scratch their heads thinking "gee how did this happen". It was the same shit with JFK/LBJ.
Jews are 2% of the U.S. population. They're 20% of the Democrat Senator population. This Congress carries water for Israel. (I'm agnostic about it)
But for idiots on the Left to "blame Bush" for a foreign policy that in all likelihood wasn't an iota different than what Gore/Lieberman or Kerry/Edwards (all 3 of the aforementioned who were in the 2002 Senate voted for war) would've offered is not just disingenuous it's intellectually bankrupt.
The first 5 years Bush was President the âpuppet of big oilâ saw crude go from 30 to 50. In a year and a half of a Dem Congress oil went from 50 to 145. Dem's don't want oil production or a carbon footprint. But who had their life savings in Occidental prior to the 2000 election? Al Gore. Who's made nine figures off the global warming scare? Al Gore. Is there a liberal pundit alive who knows that Al Gore has made WAY MORE money off our energy policy the past decade than evil Bush/Cheney? Many in the media know the score but they ain't telling.