You can take the....

[TheConMan]

Wrong answer. All the neo-commies here would be first in line to volunteer for the new Nazi Fourth Reich. What is above is below. What is below is above. Your friend is your enemy. And your enemy is your friend.





Quote from maxpi:

The centrist Democrats. Like the Nazis they use the press as their propaganda machine, they are internally socialistic and externally anti communistic, in their view people are children of nature not children of God, children are property of the state not their parents, etc.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from whitster:

i really detest elitism like this

case in point

"brainwashed, ignorant and blind supporters of this invasion "

It's not elitism, it's frustration. I don't blame people who supported the war in 2003 but one year later the opposition had a huge amount of evidence, facts, research, books, eyewitnesses proving that Bush was an incompetent moron destroying this country and the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake, lie, disaster and quagmire. Sorry but people ignoring overwhelming facts and abundant evidence if it bites them in the butt are indeed ignorant and blind.

They had to re-elect Bush, live through Katrina, Dubai, Iraq casualties and civil war, record trade/budget deficits, nuclear militarization of Iran, Harriet Myers and now Guest worker nonsense to finally realize that the opposition was right after all. Too bad it's too late.

Quote from whitster:

i do not disrespect those who were against the invasion by claiming that.

That's certainly very sweet and fair of you, unfortunately most Bush dittoheads and members of the republican party (including Rove, Bush, Cheney, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani) called them unpatriotic traitors, Osama sympathizers and weak on defense.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from dddooo:

It's not elitism, it's frustration. I don't blame people who supported the war in 2003 but one year later the opposition had a huge amount of evidence, facts, research, books, eyewitnesses proving that Bush was an incompetent moron destroying this country and the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake, lie, disaster and quagmire. Sorry but people ignoring overwhelming facts and abundant evidence if it bites them in the butt are indeed ignorant and blind.

They had to re-elect Bush, live through Katrina, Dubai, Iraq casualties and civil war, record trade/budget deficits, nuclear militarization of Iran, Harriet Myers and now Guest worker nonsense to finally realize that the opposition was right after all. Too bad it's too late.


That's certainly very sweet and fair of you, unfortunately most Bush dittoheads and members of the republican party (including Rove, Bush, Cheney, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani) called them unpatriotic traitors, Osama sympathizers and weak on defense.

Remind me again how the opposition would have prevented the "nuclear militarization of Iran." Like they did the nuclear militarization of North Korea, which happened on Clinton's watch?

There is one plan for Iraq that is even worse than the administration's. That would be the Democrat cut and run plan. If the Democrats take over Congress, they can take down the American flag and put up a white one, right under the mexican flag.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So let me get this straight.

Your republicans got us into this mess, but your republicans are the best choice to get us out?

Are you willing to accept a tax hike to pay to clean up this mess, send only republican military members over to die and get wounded....say over the next 20 years or so that it takes to see if the experiment actually works?

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Remind me again how the opposition would have prevented the "nuclear militarization of Iran." Like they did the nuclear militarization of North Korea, which happened on Clinton's watch?

There is one plan for Iraq that is even worse than the administration's. That would be the Democrat cut and run plan. If the Democrats take over Congress, they can take down the American flag and put up a white one, right under the mexican flag.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Remind me again how the opposition would have prevented the "nuclear militarization of Iran."

If our troops were not stuck and slaughtered in Iraq, if Iraq did not cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, if we did not piss off all our traditional friends and allies, if the Commander in Chief was not an incompetent failure and laughingstock of the world we would be in a much stronger position to deal with the real Iranian threat. Now they're just laughing in our face understanding full well that we're already stretched too thin, in debt up to our eyeballs and there is very little we can do to stop them.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

There is one plan for Iraq that is even worse than the administration's. That would be the Democrat cut and run plan.

Actually the democrats' cut and run plan is indeed terrible, too bad the alternatives are worse - staying, bleeding our troops and a trillion dollars and eventually still cutting and running. The war is unwinnable as was predicted by a majority of experts prior to the invasion.

 

[whitster]

ddooo, you prove exactly my point

there are brilliant people on all sides of this debate, and dumb people. there are informed, and uninformed

it is elitist (and simply factually incorrect) to state that the only people who take/took the proinvasion position are brainwashed, etc.

is ed koch brainwashed? elie weisel? etc.

and the lies thing gets old. there is simply little to no evidence for it. the duelfer report, the 911 commission, etc. etc. bolster the argument that our intel sucked and recent evidence shows that Saddam even gamed his OWN generals etc. about WMD's to an extent. the issue (imo) that is more important is that expost Gulf War I and the agreement he signed, the burden of proof was on him, not on the other side. in the case of south africa, etc. they met a burden of proof in demonstration of the destruction of their WMD's. whatever you say about SH, the UN inspectors, etc. he clearly did not

he bluffed, apparently, and we (dems and repubs) called him on it

regardless, it is again simply elitist and disrespectful of EVIDENCE to claim that those who have a differing pov are stupid or brainwashed. i have heard that same call from some people on both sides, and it is neither truthful, nor helpful. it is a sentiment mentality, based on emotion, not on facts

 

[dddooo]

Quote from whitster:

and the lies thing gets old. there is simply little to no evidence for it. the duelfer report, the 911 commission, etc. etc. bolster the argument that our intel sucked and recent evidence shows that Saddam even gamed his OWN generals etc. about WMD's to an extent.

That everyone believed Saddam had WMD was not a lie, everything else about the invasion was. The mushroom cloud, ties to Al-Qaeda, flowers greeting liberators, Bush's manipulation of public opinion putting Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence until 70% of americans were convinced that Saddam was involved, Iraqi oil paying for reconstruction, Powell's UN presentation, nonsense about enforcing the UN resolutions, unwillingness to give inspectors a little more time as they requested and avoid the invasion...

The list could be much longer, the point is simple though, it was a weird mixture of stupidity, lies, distortions, incompetence, negligence and arrogance. We could debate whether any specific statement this adminstration made was based on a lie, negligence or incompetence but there is no doubt that it was one of those three and I am hard-pressed to figure out which one was actually worse. I personally would probably prefer a competent liar but that's just me.

Quote from whitster:

is ed koch brainwashed? elie weisel? etc.

Of course not but I was talking about regular people, I was not talking about politicians who are obviously not brainwashed or ignorant, they have political agendas, lobbies and financial interests instead, they are the ones who do the brainwashing.

 

[whitster]

i am not going to get into a semiotics laced deconstruction of your prose, but here's a little

"That everyone believed Saddam had WMD was not a lie, "

yes, most believed. not quite everyone. but most

"everything else about the invasion was. The mushroom cloud, "

that was not a lie, because what was said (i am paraphrasing) was a statement of tactics e.g "we don't want to wait UNTIL the mushroom cloud" etc. it's a form of rhetoric, but it clearly not a lie. in fact, it is part of a clear causus belli hereinafter referred to as "the bush doctrine". it was a statement of proaction. it was not a statement that Saddam had nukes. clearly, THAT is not what was said. he MIGHT have was the point, and we were not going to wait UNTIL a mushroom cloud to find out whether he did or not. you may disagree with the bush doctrine, but that put it clearly in a nutshell

"ties to Al-Qaeda,"

bush never said SH had any direct ties to *911*. i am glad you didn't try that one. SH *did* have ties to al qaeda. he supported terrorists linked to al qaeda, paid their families, etc. furthermore, the causus belli was never "ties to al qaeda". it was part of the network of terrorists and terrorist enablers, of which Al Qaeda was *a* manifestation

we went into Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. we did NOT go into Iraq specifically for Al qaeda, nor was same ever claimed by bushco.


"flowers greeting liberators"

again, that is not a lie. it was a prediction. mostly incorrect, by rumsfeld. i got lots of issues with rumsfled, but this is clearly no more a "lie" than (lord forbid) neville chamberlain's famous "peace in our time" which proved abysmally wrong, and which churchill rightly recognized as such

i suggest you read the 911 report, and the duelfer report. they establish pretty well that this was not a war based on lies. i have yet to see any examples from you.

heck, david corn et al have made a better case in the pages of the nation, and in the book "the lies of George W Bush" (you should read it) for the "lie" meme. not convincing, but more so than your attempt methinx.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from whitster:

i am not going to get into a semiotics laced deconstruction of your prose, but here's a little

"That everyone believed Saddam had WMD was not a lie, "

yes, most believed. not quite everyone. but most

"everything else about the invasion was. The mushroom cloud, "

that was not a lie, because what was said (i am paraphrasing) was a statement of tactics e.g "we don't want to wait UNTIL the mushroom cloud" etc. it's a form of rhetoric, but it clearly not a lie. in fact, it is part of a clear causus belli hereinafter referred to as "the bush doctrine". it was a statement of proaction. it was not a statement that Saddam had nukes. clearly, THAT is not what was said. he MIGHT have was the point, and we were not going to wait UNTIL a mushroom cloud to find out whether he did or not. you may disagree with the bush doctrine, but that put it clearly in a nutshell

"ties to Al-Qaeda,"

bush never said SH had any direct ties to *911*. i am glad you didn't try that one. SH *did* have ties to al qaeda. he supported terrorists linked to al qaeda, paid their families, etc. furthermore, the causus belli was never "ties to al qaeda". it was part of the network of terrorists and terrorist enablers, of which Al Qaeda was *a* manifestation

we went into Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. we did NOT go into Iraq specifically for Al qaeda, nor was same ever claimed by bushco.


"flowers greeting liberators"

again, that is not a lie. it was a prediction. mostly incorrect, by rumsfeld. i got lots of issues with rumsfled, but this is clearly no more a "lie" than (lord forbid) neville chamberlain's famous "peace in our time" which proved abysmally wrong, and which churchill rightly recognized as such

i suggest you read the 911 report, and the duelfer report. they establish pretty well that this was not a war based on lies. i have yet to see any examples from you.

heck, david corn et al have made a better case in the pages of the nation, and in the book "the lies of George W Bush" (you should read it) for the "lie" meme. not convincing, but more so than your attempt methinx.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that Bush did not lie because he never said "Saddam was behind 9/11" when he said 1,000,000 times "we must remove Saddam because of 9/11" instead knowing full well that this geographically and politically-challenged nation does not understand Middle Eastern nuances and trusts him and his judgement. It's as good as lying in my book even if it would not stand up in court, it's of course your prerogative to pretend that this technicality legitimizes his actions. It was his clear intention to connect Saddam with 9/11 without spelling it out and he did achieve it brilliantly and dishonestly.

Actually your entire case that Bush did not lie is not even based on him trying to be honest, it's based on mere technicalities. It was rhetoric, mistakes, exaggerations, distortions, manipulation of public opinion, cherrypicking of intelligence information (yeah when you select one fact that supports your position and ignore 10 facts that don't you're technically not lying). Guess what, I agree, from a pure technical perspective Bush did not lie about Iraq, he just misled the nation into war and made a case for war where there was no case. Does it really make you feel any better, does it make his actions and the war any less wrong, immoral and criminal, our casualties and expenses any less meaningless?

PS I guess incompence, negligence and arrogance of this administration go without saying as no one is arguing against them. I am hard-pressed to remember one thing they got right about Iraq.

 

[whitster]

"It's intellectually dishonest to claim that Bush did not lie because he never said "Saddam was behind 9/11" when he said 1,000,000 times "we must remove Saddam because of 9/11""

well, aside from the fact that regime change as official policy dated back to the clinton admin...

again, you are either willfully or ignorantly failing to understand the bush doctrine. the bush doctrine was that terrorists, their enablers/supporters etc. would be taken out

it was BECAUSE OF 911 that the bush doctrine was established. that is clearly what bush meant by saying we must remove saddam etc (and then the whole WMD issue) and very clear to anybody who has spent even a small amount of time reading the various arguments for and against the bush doctrine. i've read screeds from everybody from michael moore, the socialist world weekly, to bill kristol, etc. the issue is not as you are saying it.

he NEVER said saddam was behind 911. he DID say over and over that 911 was the clarion call FOR the bush doctrine, to act PROACTIVELY

this is not a technicality, although it is constantly glossed over. it IS the bush doctrine. the powell doctrine, the bush doctrine, etc. (which are very different - but on the subject of doctrines), are not hard to understand if you set aside your prejudices. there are good arguments for or against, but don't mischaracterize.

btw, elie weisel is NOT a politician. and there are plenty of other brilliant and intelligent people who are/were for the invasion is my point. it does not mean they are brainwashed or dumb or illinformed. that is my original point

i know some VERY intelligent and informed people who were for it, and others who were against it. welcome to a democracy.

again, it is the elitism i disdain. NOT the idea that the invasion was wrong. that is (imo) a reasonable position, but NOT the idea that those opposed to it are (take your pick) evil, brainwashed, bushbots, neocons, illinformed, etc.

i am willing to extend to people who differing pov's on nearly all issues i can think of the benefit of the doubt in their intentions and their intelligence.

what is intellectually dishonest is to twist the bush doctrine (when it is CLEAR that the bush doctrine is pretty simple - proactive strikes against terrorist states, AND their enablers and a policy that when the US makes a promise (vis a vis divulging evidence of destruction of WMD) we keep it.

rumsfeld clearly needed to study more military history. even given SH;'s abhhorrent terroristic murderous rapacious regime (the guy heroworshipped stalin for pete's sake), iraqis were hardly gonna LOVE us for occupying them. at least NOT a significant portion of them.

the invasion was an astounding success. even this soon it is being studied as a model of success in classes at the Naval WarCollege among others. the occupation has had numerous errors in judgment and execution to say the least.

btw, is Chris Hitchens (former nation writer, current vanity fair writer, and very brilliant leftist) WRONG in his support of the invasion becuase he is BRAINWASHED or ILLINFORMED (hitchens is a lot of things, but he aint illinformed). ?

give people with different pov's the respect to not mischaracterize their ideas, or claim they believe such merely because they are ignorant, brainwashed or illinformed. that is the functional equivalent of demonization and belittlement, and does little to further honest debate.