Republicans seize control of GOP from Neocons

[Truth Detector]

Then I take it you'll equally condemn the likes of Reverend and Truth Detector calling liberals "socialists" or "communists" since it appears you do not believe there can be different classifications of liberals and conservatives?

Or do you only hold your outrage and disdain for the words used by one side?

Calling someone a Neo-Con, which can be defined in general terms, is no worse or different than calling someone a Socialist

First off, I don't call people "Communist" unless they are truly "Communist." Secondly, how is it labeling someone a Socialist somehow a bad thing or name calling? Are we further DUMBING down the English language once more to fit some narrow myopic agenda?

Your feigned outrage and disdain appears to be extremely selective as well. We call this being a HYPOCRITE.

Sometimes you truly do reach extreme conclusions with some of your hysteric attempts to stand for almost nothing.

 

[Truth Detector]

Bush: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda ..."

Lie. Report after report said there was no credible evidence of any corroborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, including the CIA, Senate investigation, British intelligence, DIA, Israeli intellegence, and a presidential briefing memo Bush received 10 days after 9-11.

Yet Bush and his administration persisted in this lie that Iraq was an ally of Al Qaeda, to justify their war on Iraq because of 9-11.

And as far as lying, we're still waiting for those "senate investigations showed he did not lie" you claimed existed but then could only cite an op-ed piece after calling yet another member "traitor".

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...ms/38859-bush-s-legacy-15.html#post1057798010

You're good at thowing labels around, piss poor when it comes to backing up your claims. As far as people being "traitors", what would you call a person who blindly follows immoral policy and supports an immoral war based on lies simply because the Government is doing it, and demands others do the same?

A good label for that would be "fascist," if you want to throw infantile lables around.

I love how you keep spouting the same lies and distortions over and over again, yet when handed the very document that outlines the reasons we went into Iraq, you ignore it.

You're profound in your desperate attempts to spread the same tired old lies and distortions to support your narrow and myopic partisan views.

READ the Joint Resolution. Read what Clinton Administration officials said before Bush even came into office. Read what the CIA Director, a Clinton appointee, stated regarding WMDs; it's a SLAM DUNK.

Then do a REALITY check and look back at how MOST Americans felt after 9-11.

I know you love to wallow in denial and your whacko conspiracy theories, but the FACTS don't support your assertions.

Carry on; denial leads to ignorance, please don't do denial.

:roll:

 

[sazerac]

Try reading the post above this one...Or, do the research you accuse your buddy of not doing...

I've read all this! What the hell is new about the US being a hegemony and wanting to be the leader of the world?

And given that we don't have much time before 2nd rate thugs get a hold of WMDs we are acting with a little urgency.

But nothing has so changed that we need a new word invented by those opposed to our foreign policy so that they can more easily insult us.

 

[Thorgasm]

I love how you keep spouting the same lies and distortions over and over again, yet when handed the very document that outlines the reasons we went into Iraq, you ignore it.

You're profound in your desperate attempts to spread the same tired old lies and distortions to support your narrow and myopic partisan views.

READ the Joint Resolution. Read what Clinton Administration officials said before Bush even came into office. Read what the CIA Director, a Clinton appointee, stated regarding WMDs; it's a SLAM DUNK.

Then do a REALITY check and look back at how MOST Americans felt after 9-11.

I know you love to wallow in denial and your whacko conspiracy theories, but the FACTS don't support your assertions.

Carry on; denial leads to ignorance, please don't do denial.

:roll:

Richard Clarke

 

[Macintosh]

I've read all this! What the hell is new about the US being a hegemony and wanting to be the leader of the world?

And given that we don't have much time before 2nd rate thugs get a hold of WMDs we are acting with a little urgency.

But nothing has so changed that we need a new word invented by those opposed to our foreign policy so that they can more easily insult us.

I wasn't talking to you; I was talking to Z or whoever. The one who ignorantly inferred that I had no facts to back up what I was saying. It's actually pretty common knowledge, so someone as haughty as him ought know it.

 

[Iriemon]

I love how you keep spouting the same lies and distortions over and over again, yet when handed the very document that outlines the reasons we went into Iraq, you ignore it.

Nice rant. Feel free to point out what I said was a lie.

Or better yet, address the topic of my post and show that Bush's claim that Iraq was an ally of Al Qaeda was not a lie.

You're profound in your desperate attempts to spread the same tired old lies and distortions to support your narrow and myopic partisan views.

READ the Joint Resolution. Read what Clinton Administration officials said before Bush even came into office. Read what the CIA Director, a Clinton appointee, stated regarding WMDs; it's a SLAM DUNK.

Then do a REALITY check and look back at how MOST Americans felt after 9-11.

I know you love to wallow in denial and your whacko conspiracy theories, but the FACTS don't support your assertions.

Carry on; denial leads to ignorance, please don't do denial.

:roll:

Here's some FACTS for you:

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President Bush, November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council
passed Resolution 1441

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003

 

[Truth Detector]

Richard Clarke

What FACTS does Richard Clark make that contradict the Joint Resolution, the statements by Clinton Administration officials, the statements by the Director of the CIA, a Clinton appointee and the numerous other foreign intelligence agencies that all thought the same thing?

What assertions did Richard Clark make that counter the interview with Saddam Hussein where he admitted the REASONS he wanted everyone to believe he had WMDs was because he feared Iran much more than he did the UN or the USA.

Please attempt even a tiny thread of credibility and quote the exact statement made by Clark that makes Richard more credible than ALL the other data that is available.

Your willful denial is noted, but pithy one line statements hardly make your arguments credible; instead they better illustrate your troll like behavior to avoid substance.

Carry on.
:roll:

 

[Truth Detector]

Nice rant. Feel free to point out what I said was a lie.

Or better yet, address the topic of my post and show that Bush's claim that Iraq was an ally of Al Qaeda was not a lie.

Here's some FACTS for you:

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President Bush, November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council
passed Resolution 1441

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003

Is there a POINT here? Or do you really think this gives your lies and distortions any credibility?

 

[sazerac]

I wasn't talking to you; I was talking to Z or whoever. The one who ignorantly inferred that I had no facts to back up what I was saying. It's actually pretty common knowledge, so someone as haughty as him ought know it.

Oh right. I've always heard the references to the Jews on Bush's staff.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes folks, here we go again. According to the whacked out Liberals of this forum, either all these Democrats were either LYING, or totally FOOLED by someone they claim is a moron:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

 

[Truth Detector]

Of course, the forums Liberals want to ignore the Joint Resolution and the REASONS we went into Iraq:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

 

[Truth Detector]

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

 

[Thorgasm]

Seriously? You want to derail the discussion with the Iraq war? That card has been played to death.

Neocon.

 

[Truth Detector]

But that isn't enough still, now they want you to believe that Bush lied to or fooled Tony Blair and John Howard:

Bush, Blair make case against Iraq
Confusion over Iraqi nuke report
September 7, 2002 Posted: 11:52 PM EDT (0352 GMT)

CAMP DAVID, Maryland (CNN) -- President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday there is ample evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, but critics questioned that conclusion and late Saturday some of the evidence the leaders cited was brought into question.

Both leaders cited a report indicating possible nuclear construction by Iraq, although a spokesman for the international agency in charge of nuclear inspection said no conclusions could be drawn from the report.

Blair escapes blame for Iraqi war
July 15, 2004 - 2:14PM

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
An official British inquiry lambasted the state of pre-war intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction but said Prime Minister Tony Blair had not deliberately misled the nation into going to war.

Blair immediately accepted responsibility for any mistakes but insisted the US-led war to remove Iraqi president Saddam Hussein last year had been justified.

"Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam," a defiant Blair told parliament.

PM unapologetic despite Iraq weapons report
Prime Minister John Howard says he does not need to apologise for joining the war in Iraq despite a new report that has found Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the US-led invasion.

The chief US weapons inspector has told the US Congress the former Iraqi dictator had in fact destroyed his weapons stocks in 1991.

Before the war, Mr Howard said if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, then military intervention to change the regime could not be justified.

Today at the National Press Club, Mr Howard was unrepentant.

"It is true that on the basis of the work and the surveys carried out to date, stockpiles of WMD have not been discovered," he said.

"But it is also true that Duelfer and many others have certified to both the capacity and intention of Iraq to resume its WMD ambitions, once the United Nations sanctions and the United Nations pressure had disappeared."

 

[Macintosh]

Well, Independent, you have to give him credit; nobody can accuse him of not being thorough.

And he has a good point... Either the Democrats accept half the blame, or we can regard the Democrats as morons who were fooled by someone they call a moron.

 

[missypea]

Seriously? You want to derail the discussion with the Iraq war? That card has been played to death.

Neocon.

Derail, deflect.....some people will do anything to stop this talk about kicking neocons out of the political landscape.

It's not too hard to connect the dots.

 

[Truth Detector]

Seriously? You want to derail the discussion with the Iraq war? That card has been played to death.

Neocon.

No Leftist, that was done by your Leftists pals. I just refuse to allow the petty small minded Forum leftists to continue to hijack threads with their whiney lies and distortions.

Funny how you lack even the most basic comprehension to understand this; but then, you have your Leftist filter on.

Carry on.
:roll:

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Nice rant. Feel free to point out what I said was a lie.

Or better yet, address the topic of my post and show that Bush's claim that Iraq was an ally of Al Qaeda was not a lie.

Here's some FACTS for you:

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President Bush, November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council
passed Resolution 1441

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003

Is there a POINT here? Or do you really think this gives your lies and distortions any credibility?

Giving that it is Bush making these statements about the one determination and single question being Iraq's WMDs, I agree you have a point. I agree Bush doesn't have much credibility.

 

[Zyphlin]

Mac, I did see your post above. Guess what, IT DOESN'T prove what you say is fact. Lets look at what you said:

The majority of neoconservatives ARE JEWISH! That's a fact. Or, rather than accept it as such, would you rather call me anti-Semite?

And then what your post said?

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense.​

Lets see...

You say that the majority of neoconservatives, which by implication of your post you mean current ones not at the moment of their creation, ARE Jewish. you state that's fact.

Your "backup" for this is to show that the original ones were Jewish?

That doesn't PROVE your fact. I don't have to research a damn thing. YOU made the claim that it was fact, YOU must provide the evidence to back up your ludicrous claim.

So show me anything factual that proves the MAJORITY of Neoconservatives are Jewish.

Secondly, how is it labeling someone a Socialist somehow a bad thing or name calling? Are we further DUMBING down the English language once more to fit some narrow myopic agenda?p

I don't know, do you feel its dumbing down the English Language to make stating or calling someone a Neocon is a bad thing or name calling a bad thing to fit some narrow myopic agenda a bad thing?

My point was not necessarily that calling someone a Socialist (based not on them actually being a socialist but because they're a liberal that shows some similarities in view to a socialist) was a bad thing or name calling...but that calling someone a "Neocon" is no different than calling them a Socialist and one can not whine, complain, bitch, and moan about how "Neocon" shouldn't be used because its attacking and an insult but has no issue with socialist.

Read my posts before bitching at me. To "feign outrage" about someone calling someone a Socialist I would've needed to present some kind of outrage over it. I didn't, my annoyance was with someone bitching about how calling someone a "Neocon" is bad but has no issue with those calling someone a socialist.​

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

Last I checked the thread was not about the Iraq War. Hijacking THREE POSTS to rant about it is not needed nor acceptable. Cease the derail or take it to another thread. Additionally I'd advise a quick perusal of the Fair Use section of the rules.

 

[Iriemon]

No Leftist, that was done by your Leftists pals. I just refuse to allow the petty small minded Forum leftists to continue to hijack threads with their whiney lies and distortions.

Funny how you lack even the most basic comprehension to understand this; but then, you have your Leftist filter on.

Carry on.
:roll:

So you're arguing is that Bush and his administration did not justify the war on Iraq on the basis that Iraq was an "ally" of Al Qaeda?

:rofl

 

[Truth Detector]

What did Saddam say about WMDs to his interrogator?

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions
Tells 60 Minutes Former Iraqi Dictator Didn't Expect U.S. Invasion
Comments 1085 | Page 3 of 6
Jan. 27, 2008

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.

"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.


Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions, Tells 60 Minutes Former Iraqi Dictator Didn't Expect U.S. Invasion - CBS News

 

[Macintosh]

Mac, I did see your post above. Guess what, IT DOESN'T prove what you say is fact. Lets look at what you said:



And then what your post said?



Lets see...

You say that the majority of neoconservatives, which by implication of your post you mean current ones not at the moment of their creation, ARE Jewish. you state that's fact.

Your "backup" for this is to show that the original ones were Jewish?

That doesn't PROVE your fact. I don't have to research a damn thing. YOU made the claim that it was fact, YOU must provide the evidence to back up your ludicrous claim.

So show me anything factual that proves the MAJORITY of Neoconservatives are Jewish.

Neo-conservatives/list - SourceWatch

Go down the list, click on the names and read their backgrounds.

There you go. Also, read John Dean's "Conservatives With Conscience" and you'll note that even he says it, as does Pat Buchanan in "Where The Right Went Wrong."

Again, anyone who uses the term as frequently as you ought know all of this.

 

[Truth Detector]

So you're arguing is that Bush and his administration did not justify the war on Iraq on the basis that Iraq was an "ally" of Al Qaeda?

:rofl

ALL the reasons for going into Iraq are contained in the Joint Resolution to go to War with Iraq.

Instead of all this willful denial, why not read the document Democrats and Republicans, along with 76% of the American people agreed with, instead of attempting to postulate lies and distortions to the contrary?

Why do you continue to ignore what Clinton Administration said about WMDs and Saddam? Were they all liars as you desperately want to claim Bush is?

Why do you pretend that Saddam was in compliance when his OWN words suggested that he wanted EVERYONE to believe he still had WMDs?

Why do you pretend Saddam was in compliance when the events leading up to the War were due to his kicking the inspectors out of his country, and the FACT that he did not allow them back in until we started massing troops at his borders?

Perhaps the reasons for your desperate lies and distortions are because you need to fit them into your narrow partisan political views. But the TRUTH and the FACTS are all here for those who are not willfully wallowing in denial.

I will agree with ONE thing about Bush; he misjudged the intelligence and will of the American people. Osama Bin Laden got it 100% correct and we watched the desperate leftist and Liberals do everything they could to prove him right and impugn this administration and the troops efforts for purely partisan political purposes to get back the political power they think is their entitlement.

The Left and Democrats seeing how gullible and ignorant the American voter was even claimed this was the NEW patriotism. It's patently ignorant and shows how the education system has failed the American people by creating such a bunch of gullible lemmings, but that is where we are today and here you are leading the charge once again.

Carry on; I don't expect you to acknowledge the TRUTH or the FACTS. You're far better at lying, distorting and partisan political talking points.

 

[Bonnie1988]

Party bosses will try to take the Party still further to the left, but grassroots Republicans will fight to take it back to its traditional conservative roots.