shuamort said:I was at the gym last night and that interview was on. Apparently, he's added more pages to his autobiography and whatever he says is probably going to spur more sales of that book. As the axiom goes, any publicity is good publicity.
What would you suggest? Call him a liar right to his face? When you interview a pathological liar like Clinton, you have to expect you will get lied to. Williams did the right thing-- let Clinton hang himself.What a wimp Williams is, he just let Clinton say those out right lies and get away with it.
Well gosh, it seems to me he's just modeling after our current president. Bush has hung himself in his lies more than he has approved executions in Texas.Squawker said:What would you suggest? Call him a liar right to his face? When you interview a pathological liar like Clinton, you have to expect you will get lied to. Williams did the right thing-- let Clinton hang himself.
All I have seen as proof is partisan rhetoric and slogans. Bush lied, men died type of propaganda. The reality of the situation is if Bush is such a liar, and as evil as the left tries to make him, he would have been charged with a crime by now. No smoking gun, just left wing character assignations they are so good at.Well gosh, it seems to me he's just modeling after our current president. Bush has hung himself in his lies more than he has approved executions in Texas.
Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?Squawker said:All I have seen as proof is partisan rhetoric and slogans. Bush lied, men died type of propaganda. The reality of the situation is if Bush is such a liar, and as evil as the left tries to make him, he would have been charged with a crime by now. No smoking gun, just left wing character assignations they are so good at.
sebastiansdreams said:Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?
That is so old it is getting ridicules, and not worthy of going into again. It is all partisan to say that he should have had ESP and known before the evidence showed different. :dohWell didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?
No, I certainly am not suggesting that he have ESP or anything. But come on man, this was a war. This costs thousands of people their lives. It couldn't have hurt to be "pretty damn sure" on the verge of "certain" that these weapons existed before we went to war. It is one thing to have sent in spies to check this crap out. Or even to assasinate the man for his multiple crimes against the world. But to start a war, you just need to be more certain than that.Squawker said:That is so old it is getting ridicules, and not worthy of going into again. It is all partisan to say that he should have had ESP and known before the evidence showed different. :doh
And much fewer in year two than any war in our nations history, maybe even history itself.sebastiansdreams said:No, I certainly am not suggesting that he have ESP or anything. But come on man, this was a war. This costs thousands of people their lives.Three of the biggest intelligence agencies worldwide said he had them, the previous administration said he had them, the last opponent for the presidency said he had them( and then said he didn't have them, then said he had them but probably hid them, then said he had them but probably got rid of them), and the U.N. was deathly afraid he had them(but we all know how useful those jokers are)It couldn't have hurt to be "pretty damn sure" on the verge of "certain" that these weapons existed before we went to war.That could have been a global political disaster.It is one thing to have sent in spies to check this crap out.Can't assasinate world leaders according to the Geneva Accords.Or even to assasinate the man for his multiple crimes against the world. But to start a war, you just need to be more certain than that.
Good point. When you blow up your enemies in the first round, not a whole lot of dying in the second year.LaMidRighter said:And much fewer in year two than any war in our nations history, maybe even history itself.
Bigger is not always better. And in this case they were way wrong. If we had just taken the time to find out if they had these weapons, thousands of lives would have been spared.Three of the biggest intelligence agencies worldwide said he had them, the previous administration said he had them, the last opponent for the presidency said he had them( and then said he didn't have them, then said he had them but probably hid them, then said he had them but probably got rid of them), and the U.N. was deathly afraid he had them(but we all know how useful those jokers are)
Whereas just bombing the hell out of them had no real political repricussions.That could have been a global political disaster.
Saddam is not nor was a "world leader." He was a murderer, and that we have proof of.Can't assasinate world leaders according to the Geneva Accords.
Here is an interesting read from October 8, 2004.sebastiansdreams said:Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?
Wrong, AGAIN! Had our ahole President simply allowed the inspections to continue instead of rushing into a war that is a international disgrace we would not have 1700 dead Americans.Fantasea said:So, given the Duelfer Report, was war justified?
Most wars have the heaviest casualties during the rebuilding phase, WWI and II, Civil War, and this one is no exception because of the types of insurgencies like we are seeing now, this is the phase where the few who have the most to lose will step up the violence.sebastiansdreams said:Good point. When you blow up your enemies in the first round, not a whole lot of dying in the second year.
True, but in this case, bigger also means more efficient and more thorough, if they in fact did get this totally wrong and the weapons weren't moved, that is an issue to be dealt with when our troops are safely back home.Bigger is not always better. And in this case they were way wrong. If we had just taken the time to find out if they had these weapons, thousands of lives would have been spared.
That's what happens when you make tough decisions, the U.N. had 12 years to act and did nothing, we were blamed throughout the ninetees of being heavy handed towards the people of Iraq for backing the sanctions and lost much respect in that region, with that in mind, the U.N. decided to play politics and build consensus rather than act, someone had to do it, and I feel we made the proper decision. And yes, Saddam was a world leader in that he was a head of state, therefore, we are bound to our end of the deal by Geneva standards.Whereas just bombing the hell out of them had no real political repricussions.
Saddam is not nor was a "world leader." He was a murderer, and that we have proof of.
sebastiansdreams said:Good point. When you blow up your enemies in the first round, not a whole lot of dying in the second year.
Bigger is not always better. And in this case they were way wrong. If we had just taken the time to find out if they had these weapons, thousands of lives would have been spared.
Whereas just bombing the hell out of them had no real political repricussions.
Saddam is not nor was a "world leader." He was a murderer, and that we have proof of.
Squawker said:That is so old it is getting ridicules, and not worthy of going into again. It is all partisan to say that he should have had ESP and known before the evidence showed different. :doh
sebastiansdreams said:Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?
Squawker said:What would you suggest? Call him a liar right to his face? When you interview a pathological liar like Clinton, you have to expect you will get lied to. Williams did the right thing-- let Clinton hang himself.
sebastiansdreams said:No, I certainly am not suggesting that he have ESP or anything. But come on man, this was a war. This costs thousands of people their lives. It couldn't have hurt to be "pretty damn sure" on the verge of "certain" that these weapons existed before we went to war.
It is one thing to have sent in spies to check this crap out.
Or even to assasinate the man for his multiple crimes against the world. But to start a war, you just need to be more certain than that.
sebastiansdreams said:And in this case they were way wrong. If we had just taken the time to find out if they had these weapons, thousands of lives would have been spared.
sebastiansdreams said:Whereas just bombing the hell out of them had no real political repricussions. Saddam is not nor was a "world leader." He was a murderer, and that we have proof of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?