While Bush and his administration did lie in their efforts to win support for this war, as I've posted earlier in this thread, the WMD wasn't exactly a lie. I'll concede that. But it was deceitful. They deceived people into thinking the treat was one way, and the war was about one thing when it really wasn't. I've said all along that while I think they way they went about this war, and the bad diplomacy and dishonesty involved were shameful to me because I love this country, and want it to maintain it's integrity. Despite that a good thing happened because of this war. Saddam is gone from power, and there is the chance of a fresh start for oppressed people.
outlaw - it's probably not a good practice for me to be discussing the facts of these cases like this....i'd be happy to talk to you about it over a beer sometime...but this probably isn't an appropriate forum for it given my relation to that case. i went back and deleted messages i probably shouldn't have posted in the first place. hope you understand.
i undestand. i wasn't trying to attack you or try to get you in trouble. i deleted mine too just in case. i just thought you guys were duped as well. we can have that beer if i can pick the place
Well actually I remember that Bush gave several reasons for this war. I remember democratization of Iraq was a goal, and the possible and real connections between terrorists and Iraq were laid out as well. Remember his "one vial" statement? It would be more accurate to say that Bush was deceitful in his argument as to what the main reason for the war was. Personally I thought it was WMD all along.
I agree with stipulation of 'MAIN' being put into the scentence. But in a way that's one of the thins that bothered me about the war. It seemed like Bush would change reasons every time somebody shot down the original reason he wanted to go to war. After the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi turned out to be bogus, then he brought up the nuke stuff. After the administrations lies about the Nuke stuff were exposed the focus shifted. Meanwhile they kept mentioning Iraq and sept. 11th in the same scentence to give the impression of a connection, even though they had no new evidence. People eventually believed it. The ever-chanigng reasons for the war some of which turned out to be blatently false is what gave the appearence that the Bush whitehouse just wanted to go to war no matter what, and it didn't matter what facts got in the way. They were going to go no matter what.
It was. We've both posted news on this before. You hang on to the belief that a few of the czechs that hold onto this story are correct. I hold on to the belief that every U.S. intel agency, the rest of the Czechs and Czech govt. officials claim it didn't hapen. The evidence to support that it didn't happen is that the U.S. intel officials place Atta in the U.S. at the time the meeting it supposedly took place. There are no airline tickets purchased, no credit cards used, no record of him flying either there or back to the U.S. after that meeting. So if you want to believe the small minority of people who claim that the meeting did happen, while other members of the Czech intel agency, govt. and all U.S. intelligence claims it didn't, then that's fine.
What else would you expect, Blade? No one on this board is more amazing in excitedly dismissing any source that casts doubt on his side while assigning instant credibility to any source which supports it than little heathie. Everyone does it, but no one comes close to doing it like he does. Never mind that 90% of his hyperventilating 'told you so' posts are refuted or dismissed (like one bogus WMD bombshell thread a day for a while there) as mistakes almost as soon as he posts them. And, of course, by the time one uber-credible source is dismissed, he's already on to another one. He's always right, everything that supports his position is always irrefutable, and everything that doesn't is from some kind of biased, uncredible source. You know, like ABC News. Why do you even bother?
You are right, and I've recognized that approach a lot. That's why I posted the quote of one czech intel officer saying that it's dangerous to believe a report simply because it backs the scenario that you want to be true. I guess I keep falling into debating them because it's easy. It's like a big slow ball with no movement coming right up the center of the plate. It's natural that you'd want to take a big swing at it.
LOL, you condescending prick . You guys seriously make me laugh. I will now exit the Iraq War debate, because gloating is poor form. No serious spectator of current events will deny that the Iraqis had a relationship with Al Queda or had an active WMD program up to the time of the American attack. FB, you don't strike me as a person who hates America (like Timing), but you have been dead wrong for the past three months. The only people hitting home runs in this debate have been on my side of this argument. Now, thankfully, this debate is closed. Even more thankfully, the Iraqi people are free and Saddam can no longer support terrorism. In the end, we all win.
I'm not sure which abbreviation of my handle's worse -- the one that stands for blowjob or the one that stands for bowel movement. I'm sure all those crazies from Arkham Asylum (you know, Harvey Dent and the rest of those Two-Faces like heathie, treeboy, Jorge and the like) are loving it though. Great sig, MacB. Sorry I was too late to enter the p*rn star sweepstakes. But for the record, yes, you were being mildly hypocritical, right to call, wrong to blab quite so much, right to regret it, right to worry bout 'using' her as a player in your morality play, right to walk and talk and right to do the rest. From another liberal who's dated (and otherwise enjoyed) far too many hot ladies (especially considering I am definitely NOT a model -- we call it troll magic) to another, have a good old time. It is passing obvious you won't take advantage in a wrong kind of way.
john...please...fot the love of God...stop with the '___hates America crap'...I'm not saying that I always see merit in what you post, but when you do that it's just going nowhere fast. I'm asking sincerely...argue on merit. I can see how you found the last post condescending..I might add that you had it coming, as no one on here throws insults and assumptions of superiority like you do, but that's just my opinion, and you are entitled to stand up for yourself. But please, for the love of God, Mom, and Apple Pie, cut the anti-America stuff. It's a dead end.
It was meant to be a dig at your arguments, but not to be condescending if that makes sense. And it was meant in the spirit of competitive debate, and with no reall ill will in it. Just good natured psuedo-trash talk really. I don't ever really trash talk, but sometimes I play like I do.
