I particularly like the part about how these "millions" all KNEW there were no WMD's in Iraq.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
Sck5, the only way you can really believe what your wrighting is if you are blocking all of your own memories of what went on during the last part of 01 and since then. The liberal protesters were against going into afganistan in the first place. It's going to be another vietnam, was the growing refrain. We're going to get bogged down, Was another. Then when the Afganistans were pushing to far to fast, running into our bombs and we were having to slow they're advances so we could get some kind of American oversite in there, The Dems were crying that the amry was ruining the guys on our side and the administation was going to lose the war because of that.
But lets not forget the whole corus of pundents and Democrat leaders who after seeing that the general population supported the efforts and saw the Democrats as soft and weak when it came to defense, started playing up the supossed next president Hillary's tough stances and where trying to foster the impression that Bill Clinton had been really tough and relentless on Osama Bin Ladin. Three years went by, and every democrat who got five seconds in front of a camera would start proclaiming how much better they would run the war and how tough they would be on terrorists. Meanwhile back in DC they were rubber stamping the declaration of war and the patriot act.
Then the polls started to show John Q. Public's growing disenchantment with the situation in Iraq. Most had quit paying attension to Afganistan anyway. We started to hear a steady stream of condemnation about Iraq and a steady stream of armchair quarterbacking from the democrats. You must be block the fact that other then the occasional piece in the news, very little was said about Afganistan. Till about three months ago. Funny, three month ago the surge really started to show an effect. Now we're starting to here how Bush and the republicans are losing the war no one was paying attension to anyway, because the surge in Iraq choked off all the man power.
This is right along the same concept that drilling for oil won't bring the price of oil down. Things are most likly getting worse in Afganistan because the terrorists have been pushed out of Iraq and have decided to head for Afganistan instead. More then a few of these guys are multi country veterrans anyway. Boasnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Afgasnistan vs. Russia, Jordon, Lebanon, and on and on. They've showed up all over the world. I wasn't suprised when it was released that more then a few of the men in custody had been convicted of crimes in America. I would bet the same thing would show up when or if they were run through interpol.
It like the old myth of honor amongst thieves. Most thieves aren't honorable. They will steal and cheat whomever. Usually starting with the poorest simply because they're often the most gullible and easiest targets. Same goes for these radical groups, they'll break any law they feel like, use women and children as shields, hide they lust for power behind religion. Nothing new there. I haven't yet seen any considentcy from the democratic side of the aisle to even believe they have the slightest Idea of what they're talking about when it comes to National defense. When it comes down to it, the Dem party has been blowing which ever way poll better on this issue and looks to continue being a wind sock on this one. Even Obama is starting to create some wiggle room so if the surge continues to go well and it looks better in the polls, he can jump quick to take advantage of it.
__________________ !! WARNING !! The above information is to be used by intelligent people only. If you are Stupid, could be considered a moron, or otherwise. You are instructed to disregard this information and seek the help of a licensed and bonded professional.
Ahhh, so he did, I appologize for my misreading of that
However, keep in mind that between 9.12.01 and 10.21.02 over 300 house joint resolutions were drafted and only 5 make it to vote, nahs range anywhere from " absolutely not under any condition " to " I don't like the wording " to " that's not my draft "
So to say that 126 voted against action in Iraq is misleading, 126 voted Nay to different version of a HJR
But I do appologize for incorrect reply
__________________ 1978 Tayana 37
Mother Nature, in whose lap we sit and who sustains us, sometimes eats her young
No. It is NOT true that "the liberals" were against going in to Afghanistan. Sure, there were some die hard pacifists who would be against doing anything military anywhere any time but they are hardly representative of "liberals" (or much else either for that matter) You seem to have erased from your memory the near unanimity of the votes to go after Afghanistan. The liberals were into it as much as anyone. To say otherwise is just smearing them.
Iraq was a different story. Many many people at the time didnt think Saddam was a threat (because he hadnt done anything and had a third rate military) and didnt think there were any WMD's (because the inspectors looked for them for months and didnt find any)
Regardless of all of that, those of us who were convinced there werent any WMD's were 100% CORRECT. Why not give a little credit where it is due? Us liberals got that one right and if we had not gone into Iraq but had kept them contained with the no-fly zone, arming the Kurds, etc. we would be better off right now and might even have captured Osama.
I dont claim to have the ability to see the future, but when we needed to make a judgement back in 2003 we liberals made the correct one. Bush didnt.
the trouble with those naturist festivals is that the people you wish would keep their clothes on seem to be the ones running around naked. If it were the other way around there would probably be a lot more people attending the nude protests.
Sck5, I would point out that you as well as everybody else dosn't in fact know that Sadam didn't have WMDs. There are things about WWII that have only recently come to light. Even more is hidden in Russian and other European archieves. I actully agree with you on the opinion that Sadam wasn't an immediat threat to us. I don't think he had WMDs that were any real threat beyond his local area, but we don't know what he really had.
Plenty of crooks get off each year because we can't prove they committed the crime. Twenty or so years from now will know alot more about what really was going on in Iraq under Sadam. Memoirs will be written. Facts will turn up. People from all corners of the world will have little bits and pieces that show what was really going on, but for now, there are still plenty of places WMDs could have been disposed of. Till more time has past I wouldn't make a habit out of bold black and white statements.
This dosn't change my opinion that the dems are blowing in the wind on Iraq and Afganistan. You guys don't have a plan to deal with terrorism. A bunch of words about poverty and can't we all just get along. Well here's the answer, no. Some people don't want to get along.
Take a good listen to what your guy was proposing in Iraq. Bug out, Bug out, Bug out. Guess what going to happen. A big proxy war between Iran, Turkey and Sadi Arabia. Do you really think the turks are going to pass up a chance at all that oil in nothern Iraq. One of the Kudish attacks will be the excuse. Iran will back the shite factions, Saudi Arabia the Suni's, and you know Europe will blame us for the mess even though they keep whining that we should get out. The prices of oil will go though the roof. We'll all pine for four dollar gas.
Mean while back at the homestead. The rest of Obama's platform is basicly letting government make all our decisions for us. They tell us what we can make electricity from, what heath care we're allowed, and so on.
He's flip flopping just like the rest of the party. For the war against the war for the war against the war. Will talk to our enemies, won't talk to our enemies. Going to raise are payroll taxes to help the economy by subsidizing energy products that haven't in thirty years been able to compete. You may choose to believe that it was just a few fringe groups that were against the war in Afganistan but you can only maintain that opinion by disregarding all the statigizing coming out of the DNC about how they needed to look strong on defense. How they needed to distance themselves from the anti war crowd.
No I guess all those articules I've read, All those conversations I had with my very democrat father concerning these things were in my imagination. Yea, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I read and heard them right over the last six years. You guys can't figure yourselves out. Bush's biggest mistake wasn't invading Iraq, it was keeping Rumsfeld and a few other around to long. The invasion of Iraq is only one salvo in a very long war against extremests. This is the new cold war. Only a little hotter. We're in a fight against people who would like to dictate our lives, just like back when we were fighting the Russians.
It's a never ending battle, and has been going on since man has existed. It's pitted country against country, religion against religion, religion against county and vis-a-versa. The team your currently playing for surrendered along time ago and hasn't come across it's back bone ever since.
__________________ !! WARNING !! The above information is to be used by intelligent people only. If you are Stupid, could be considered a moron, or otherwise. You are instructed to disregard this information and seek the help of a licensed and bonded professional.
You ought to try listening to what "my guy" actually says rather than what the Republicans say he says. Its not the same thing at all. Your description of his policies reads like a republican hit piece and bears little relation to what he is actually saying. You may still not like him but it would be for legitimate reasons rather than invented ones. In fact, there are clear differences between the two candidates so it is relatively easy to decide which one you like. But by all means, if you are happy with the current President you should vote for McCain.
And just what IS your guy saying? Can you tell us his position on FISA for example? Or on Campaign Finance Reform? Or maybe NAFTA?
His 180's on these and other issues have nothing to do with changing circumstances, only changing poll numbers. So please, name me an issue he hasn't changed on that has anything to do with information other than demographics.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
sck5-you are not 100% correct about the wmds in Iraq. All the libs conveniently forget that Saddam gassed 400,000 Kurds in one action. If you think he still didn't have a stockpile of nerve gas, you are very naive. He knew we were going to invade and he planned on diverting his wmds to Syria, except for the yellowcake. Get off the wmd argument already; its only political propaganda from the left that most people with an IQ higher than 70 dismiss.
See here you go again, Sck5, insulting my inteligence and expecting it to change my opinion. I watched all the democratic debates. Most of Obama's televised speachs, along with Hilary's. You assume I'm uninformed. Well I am informed. I read about Obama's flip on Nafta, watched him dig himself into a corner over his comments to talk to Iran. These weren't one articule events, but stretched over months of news coverage.
Your also taking the Democrat party line that a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush, that a major distortion of reality. You can only pidgeon hole McCain into the Bush image by ignoring what you know to be McCain's personality. Need more proof about this then pay a little attention to the consevative world where McCain is having plenty of trouble motivating the base. One of us is definitly trying to avoid seeing the canidates for who they really are, and it aint me.
I'm not in league with the republicans who are torn up about having to vote McCain. I still find him a pragmatic leader who is willing to step up and risk an unpopular stance while trying to get something done. More impresive is his willingness to turn around and let go of a policy or bill that has been proven bad for this country or impossilble to pass. On the other hand I find that Obama has tried to tist and turn his platform so many different ways that he's become very unbelievable. He's also willing to be as stuborn as Bush when it comes to admiting that a policy hasn't been well thought out.
This goes double for the Democrats. Since Obama mistake of calling small towners paranoid with they're love of guns and God, the reteric has been building, not about the democratic party adopting more of a religious platform or democrats backing attempts to allow religion back into mainstream life, but how the party should play up it's religious side and play down it's ties with anti christian groups. This is where they were on defense a couple of years back. Talking about how they looked weak and what PR was needed to change that image, but never talking about actully changing it's views the armed forces.
The Democrats are acting like the big three auto makers. Have you watched they're latest commercials, "biggest fuel range in it's class" "Ours gets 400 miles per tank, Honda only gets 320", PR in is simplest form. American cars are well behind the imports in fuel effecentcy but instead of concentrating its efforts on getting better cars on the market NOW. They'going to try and fool the public into thinking they're cars are efficent. Same for the democrats. Instead of taking a look at the whats going on in the world today, from globalization to health care, from radical extremism to moral issue brought up by modern technology, they're just going to put on the PR spin.
__________________ !! WARNING !! The above information is to be used by intelligent people only. If you are Stupid, could be considered a moron, or otherwise. You are instructed to disregard this information and seek the help of a licensed and bonded professional.
