....who continually say that Congress voted for war (which they didn't) based upon the same intel as W. had. It was propaganda, pure and simple. First read PLaul O'Neill, W's own Treasury Secretary and now his own PR guy. You know you can't trust that liberal media.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24848910

2 points

1) He sounds like a disgruntled employee. Discount most people in that situation.

2) Story came from the liberal press. I wish once I could get a story that wasn't politically biased.

Peace

This topic is very much worthy of it's own thread. It's amazing people will still believe President Cheney and Co. I posted this yesterday on the topic, when it broke...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/message/1211937026/Re-+Karl+Rove+finally+subpoened

I must have missed this on Foxnews.

What congress did do was to give the president a blank check to declare war if Sadam didn’t give up his wmd’s. They gave the president the right to declare war when he saw it to be fit. In the article below the resolution to give the president the authority to declare war passed unanimously amongst democrats and republicans.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/



Congress does not have the power to give the president the power to declare war when he sees fit. Under the constitution Article 1 only congress can declare war. Article 1 below



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html



What Congress did and I mean democrats and republicans was unconstitutional and if you are going against the United States constitution you are also against the United States. This was an act of treason in a degree.


I personally do not vote for democrats or republicans for the fact that they constantly are trying to omit or find loops in the foundation of this country. The United States was never founded as a democracy as people would like you to believe but was founded as a republic.

A democracy is a mob rule where the majority decides for all individuals

A Republic is a democracy with checks and balances “THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION”

Congress continues day after day to take away freedoms that are outlined in this document that they probably think should be used as toilet paper. Another example is the Patriot act and its abolishment of the 5th amendment.

The worst thing about a democracy or a mob rule is that the mob can be manipulated into taking away their own powers and relinquishing them to one individual. This is extremely evident in our own congress when they decided to give Bush the ultimate power. The bad thing is that a democracy sometimes will lead to a totalitarian government. One could argue that Nazi Germany was a democracy.

Homey,

Here you go.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358881,00.html

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

2 points

1) He sounds like a disgruntled employee. Discount most people in that situation.

2) Story came from the liberal press. I wish once I could get a story that wasn't politically biased.

Peace


yep, all former admin officals who have come our against the prez are just disgruntled. These are repubs, not the liberal media doing these things. Read Paul O'Neill's book. I know, disgruntled former employee. The liberal press told this story? He wrote the fuggin book, not MSNBC. Ok try Fox News for politically unbiased news.

I'd be disgruntled too if I realized I had been working for a bunch of crooks who duped the American public into supporting an action that has cost numerous lives and wreaked havoc on the economy and our international standing.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

Lets see, which book will sell more copies and make me, the former Press Secretary for George Bush: more money, more interviews on every news outlet, and friends among the Hollywood types and get invited to cool parties (I might even get to touch Angelina Jolie's belly):

1. Bush is a great leader and he and the adminstration did what they thought best for the country based on all available intel?

2. Bush and Company conducted a blantantly false PR campaign to go the war and I overheard someone who accidently heard Scooter Libby and Karl Rove discussing how to destroy Valerie Plame?


Gosh, that's a tough one.

If McClellan knew all this stuff was lies, couldn't he be charged with borderine treason for lying to the country on such a grave issue? What a bachbone this guy has.

...either all of these x-admin guys are lying for their own gain or they are telling the truth. That means W. either hired a bunch of habitual liars or sucks donkey balls. You decide.

But everyone of these guys play the, "Now that I look back at it, it was the wrong thing to do." So he thought it was ok while the press secretary but now that he looks back on it, it was the wrong thing to do.

Didn't say Bush and Co didn't sell the war. Of course they did. Just laughing at Scott McClellan acting as if he were so above it all while never raising his voice WHEN IT MATTERED.

Gotta admit, Bill Clinton certainly picked better friends than Bush. Of course, some of them ended up dead so there was the fear of God thing.

McClellan may be telling the truth but all it means was he was a spineless pu$$y who is now stepping forward to sell a book. Damn, this story is so familiar. Pete Rose.

"Didn't say Bush and Co didn't sell the war. Of course they did. Just laughing at Scott McClellan acting as if he were so above it all while never raising his voice WHEN IT MATTERED."


He was press secretary. Hardly makes policy. I laugh at those that suggest he should have 'stood up to the president.' His job is to spin the actions of the White House. If you think those guys a) beleive everything they say to the press or b) really give a shhit what the pres is doing, then you are delusional.

Clinton???? Standard W. apologist comeback. You know, Clinton was a P.O.S. so that excuses W?? Or W. sucks donkey balls but Clinton sucked elephant balls so its OK? Never got that argument.

So the Bush Gestapo showed up at Scott's house one night and made him press secretary. Then, they forced him to say things he knew were not true or face "grave" consequences.

LMAO. Sorry, Dacow but this aint the Soviet Union. He stayed on for 3, three, drei, trois fudking years. This is America. You act like he had no choice but to say what he was told to say because, gosh darnit, that was his job.

You want the press secretary job then you have to know the rules. One of them is not to write a tell all book to make a boat load cash. George Stephanapolis never threw the Clintons under the bus and easily could have.

EVERY PRESIDENT has had to sell one policy decision or another. McClellan did not say Bush lied, he said he waged a PR campaign that he felt was not correct,.... IN HINDSIGHT.

Neville Chamberlin was a hero when he proclaimed "Peace in our day" after he met with Hitler. If the world had ended that day, he would have been seen as a great politician. It didn't If Chamberlin had better intelligence, he probably would not have gone to see Hitler. Went with the intelligence he had. Gee, that Hindsight thing is a mother fudker.

Whatever.

"But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.
Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

--Is it me or does SF2 seem to be downplaying the most important 6 months in Bush's presidency as merely a "policy decision"?


"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Ever think that people like Scott McClellan, Ricardo Sanchez, Richard Clarke and others are not just bitter or greedy, but might also feel compelled to express their frustration over the mistakes made by the dipsh!ts in the current administration? Believe me, there's going to be an avalanche of similar testimonials once Bush gets out of office and everyone is set up with a nice new job.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

"Believe me, there's going to be an avalanche of similar testimonials once Bush gets out of office and everyone is set up with a nice new job."

Actually, I think we will hear it from those left behind...without a nice new job.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"--Is it me or does SF2 seem to be downplaying the most important 6 months in Bush's presidency as merely a "policy decision"?"~bronco


...SF2 you said many times, many years ago, that you had Insider Info, when the Valerie Plame case broke, that she was definately not covert and just some minor employee. You gave us a "LMAO' too, then. She testified before Congress she was "covert" Why isn't she on trial for lying to Congress?

I believe it was Bush Sr. who said "leaking a covert operatives name is treason" ...I voted for Bush Sr.

"Ever think that people like Scott McClellan, Ricardo Sanchez, Richard Clarke and others are not just bitter or greedy, but might also feel compelled to express their frustration over the mistakes made by the dipsh!ts in the current administration?"

Those are just people who are disgruntled and trying to cash in or the liberal media is blowing these stories out of proportion. Rush told me all about it.

What McClellan, said should not be a suprise to anyone. I remember when the administration was first trying to sell the public the war I read somewhere that Cheney had someone in the administration accidentally "leak" information to the Washington Post about a top Iraqi official meeting with one of the terrorists in Europe, then Cheney would quote that article to other news outlets. I guess the Washington Post had their own CIA and uncovered all this info by themselves because the article never stated where the information came from. I find it humorous that the talking heads are trying to spin this, they should just be quiet and hope it all goes away. What they are doing is just making it worse for the administration. And I like that.

What is suprising is that McClellan is the one speaking out now, as staunch a supporter as he was of the pres. This leads me to beleive that there is still a lot that we don't know and that it could be big.

How is ObamaNation gonna get us out of Iraq? With hope and change? A wish sandwich? Bow, bow, bow.

I will take hope and change over borrow and spend and more of the same ol same ol.

FOr the record, I am conviced ANYONE, even a schmuck like Pat Robertson, could have run this war and administration better.

Our kids will look back on Bush and Co. and wonder why we voted how we did.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Army suicides keep rising ...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6GBOG0InqxDzX_TMyxFBWQ1hhQQD90VEGPO0


NEW TALKING POINT: "OH dear, this is not the Scott, I know" (get use to hearing it)
Translation: Attack the messenger instead of addressing the accusations.

...SF2 you said many times, many years ago, that you had Insider Info, when the Valerie Plame case broke, that she was definately not covert and just some minor employee. You gave us a "LMAO' too, then. She testified before Congress she was "covert" Why isn't she on trial for lying to Congress?

Valerie Plame had older children and it was already known publically by neighbors that she worked at CIA. She could not be a covert op if she has children. She is considered an intelligence source i.e. someone who could deliver secret and top secret thus still retains a top secret clearance but she was NOT a COVERT op when she was outed. She did retain the covert status as a security clearance matter (CIA does this in order to tag certain employees as high risk. It is a lazy way to do this but she was not actually COVERT) but she was not an active covert operative for years and never would be again.

She did lie to Congress but as in the Debra LaFave (hot teacher having sex with students) there was no way the spineless pu&&y Republicans were going to do anything about it because she was cute and the press loved her.

BTW, Richard Armitage already admitted he outed her by accident so why does what Scott McClellan think about this matter even matter?

He was a wishy washy fat geek who was FIRED and replaced by a much smoother and well liked Tony Snow. Scotty couldn't get a high paying "insider" job after that and turned on the President. Wonder why he couldn't get a high paying job with one of Bush's friends? Well, because he sucked.


_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360723,00.html

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

"He was a wishy washy fat geek who was FIRED and replaced by a much smoother and well liked Tony Snow. Scotty couldn't get a high paying "insider" job after that and turned on the President. Wonder why he couldn't get a high paying job with one of Bush's friends? Well, because he sucked."

Typical classless Republican response to use personal attacks against an adversary. McClellan was NOT fired. Show me one bit of proof to support that (not just the lame standby that "I feel that to be true" despite evidence, just like Iraq and WMDs.)

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

It never ceases to amaze how the FOX propoganda machine continues to spin in defiance to facts....and then their spin gets repeated as analysis.

No, SF2, it most certainly was not well known that Valerie Plame was covert. That's why, when her outing first broke, the Bush administration, right up to W himself, publicly broadcasted that they considered it a treasonous act, and that they would hold anyone in their administration accountable that was behind this treason.

In their arrogance, Bush and his Pansies felt safe making such proclamations. They never thought that they would actually be exposed.

But then, despite the mainstream media being way too passive, the Bush machine was exposed anyway. Now it's not treason anymore. Now Bush and his supporters want to have it both ways.

So Scooter gets his sentence commuted for lying to FBI agents. And now McClellan reveals that Bush himself authorized the leak of Plame's identity. Why in the world hasn't Bush resigned in disgrace? Why in the world hasn't the supposedly liberal media called for his impreachment?

And what national purpose was leaked by leaking Plame's (and her entire network's)identity? Absolutely none.

It was a spiteful act of anger because Plame's husband had revealed yet one more slutty Bush lie in the leadup to the current Iraq quagmire.

Bill Clinton looks like a knight in shining armor compared to this bunch of sleazy sluts currently operating out of the White House.

Your right. All of Bush's appointies that "Stepped Down" did it on their own too (wink wink). Can we at least be honest here?



_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

"Why, all of a sudden, if he had all those grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years since he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had..." -Scott McClellan speaking in '04, slamming Richard Clarke for profiting on his book deal after his job with the White House ended. lol.

A lot has changed since '04 (including Bush's approval rating). I think you can question McClellan's professional integrity and still respect the significance of his charges. He's a Republican but that doesn't mean he lies all the time (j/k).

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

Even one of Hillary's spoksemen came out yesterday and criticized McClellan sharply...

Probably something to do with that whole "honor among theives" thing...

I don't even know what McClellan's charges are against Bush, but I don't how they could make my opinion of Bush be any worse than it already is, so it seems kind of like a waste of time for me to care anyway. If it gets your motor running, that's fine, and enjoy. I'm certainly not going to expend much effort in defending Bush.

I just think McClellan's quote from '04 was hilarious, considering, and figured SF2 might enjoy it too.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

I can't wait to see the media and the lefty nut jobs defend Obama.

of all the stories and stats and lies that you guys toss out there, you fail to mention the most important stat of them all....

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE BEEN ATTACKED SINCE 9/11?

I believe that the door will be open again as soon as Obama takes office.
Not a scare tactic, not a neo-con/fox news/limbaugh/hanity/cunningham talking point, just basic common sense.


Only after it happens will people understand...then in 6 months after the flags go back up and the tears dry up, we will be back to our noraml selves...making excuses and pointing fingers.
The left will scream that this falls on Bush b/c someone in some back office during his term, did not tell Bush himslef about the threat b/c bush was to busy doing everything else wrong.

What a pathetic nation we have become!



“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

I believe that the door will be open again as soon as Obama takes office.Not a scare tactic, not a neo-con/fox news/limbaugh/hanity/cunningham talking point, just basic common sense. --Murf

Yea Murf the second Obama takes office the CIA, FBI, and Armed Forces will all quit doing thier jobs?? You act like Bush has thwarted all the attacks on our country with a revolver in his hand.

YOUR A DUMBAZZ Murf READ YOUR HISTORY BOOK. Bush has weakened this country for the next 50-100 years. We are overextended in a war we cannot win and have no allies in the world other that Great Britian and Israel.

Iran is a threat to Israel not the U.S. We have backed Iran into a corner and they have few choices, but to arm themesleves. Iran was a democratic state until the U.S. installed a oppressive government. We fueled a war between Iraq and Iran, that Iran did not want to fight. 500,000 Iranians died in that war. Now Iran is sourrounded by the U.S. and Israel they are turning to nukes becuase they feel they have no choice. If we had talks with Iran we could fix this situation.

Obama was seen wearing shoes you must have bought that's why you hate him.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

...HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE BEEN ATTACKED SINCE 9/11?

I believe that the door will be open again as soon as Obama takes office.
Not a scare tactic, not a neo-con/fox news/limbaugh/hanity/cunningham talking point, just basic common sense.


Because his middle name is Hussein, he will welocme in the terrorists. We are doomed. Thats "basic common sense." What a total fuggin idiot.

How many times had we been attacked on our soil before 9/11?

It doesnt happen that easily because of our geography and defense technology.

If 9/11 wasnt Bush's fault then the next attack (if it occurs in the next 4-8 years) won't be Obama's right?

You are aware he wants to increase the army, marines, all special forced and counter terrorism, right?

Don't let the facts crash into your face or anything. LOL

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

What did Obama mean when he said he will side with the Muslims in his book? I want to get the full context. I didn't read the book and could not find anything online to debunk or explain the quote.

Homey, I don't have the full quote, but I read it. Basically, he was saying that if Americans become "nationalistic" and start getting all crazy on all Muslims in the US, then he would take a stand and protect them, and I can't disagree with that line of thinking. What was done to Americans of Japanese descent in WW2 shouldn't happen again.

As for what murf said, look at the pattern. Clinton was in office a few months, and they tried to bring down the WTC the first time, and failed. Clinton got lucky, and then did nothing to stop Osama even when he had the chance. Bush was in office a few months, and they tried to bring down the WTC, and succeeded. Coincidence? Maybe. It also might be strategic, wanting to see how the noob in the White House might react.

"...Yea Murf the second Obama takes office the CIA, FBI, and Armed Forces will all quit doing thier jobs?? You act like Bush has thwarted all the attacks on our country with a revolver in his hand..."

Did murf speak the truth, or not?

"...YOUR A DUMBAZZ Murf READ YOUR HISTORY BOOK. Bush has weakened this country for the next 50-100 years. We are overextended in a war we cannot win..."

The war isn't won yet, but things are finally starting to go our way. I realize that is hard for a lot of people to understand.

"...Iran is a threat to Israel not the U.S. We have backed Iran into a corner and they have few choices, but to arm themesleves..."

lmfao. Tell me how we backed them into a corner. They backed themselves into their own corner. Sheesh. Even other Islamic countries in the ME feel threatened by them, and have felt that way since Jimmah Carta was in charge.

"...We fueled a war between Iraq and Iran, that Iran did not want to fight..."

Yeah, after they took 400 Amercians hostage. lol. Please, take a reality pill.

"...500,000 Iranians died in that war. Now Iran is sourrounded by the U.S. and Israel they are turning to nukes becuase they feel they have no choice..."

Yeah, they didn't start thinking about nukes until we invaded Iraq. Uh-hum.

"...If we had talks with Iran we could fix this situation."

lmmfao.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

"Yeah, after they took 400 Amercians hostage. lol. Please, take a reality pill."

There were 52 hostages. Your erroneous recollection of the number speaks volumes about your biases. On top of that, it was not the government that occupied the US embassy, it was a group of militant students.

Do you realize what our history is in Iran? Ever heard of Operation Ajax? We supported a military coup of an DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader, supplanting him with the pro-Western Shah who would agree not to nationalize the petroleum industry and guarantee us a steady supply oil. What an honorable move on our part. Faux News doesn't ever talk about that. Ever. Imagine how we would feel about a country that financed the removal of our president.

The most pathetic thing is that our media never attempts to be objective about Middle Eastern issues. People complain about a liberal bias but the bias in this area of news coverage is an absolute travesty. The sheep eat up all the hate coverage with a spoon, playing into the governments plan like a bunch of pathetic Mike Brown supporters.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

" There were 52 hostages. Your erroneous recollection of the number speaks volumes about your biases..."

Oh jeez. lol...

And Obama said 10,000 people died in a tornado in the midwest a few motnhs ago. You know how many died? 12. But you'd rather worry about my hyperbole than that of a guy aspiring to be Potus who you believe is the messiah. Your "priorities" are insane as well as blind.

You'd rather quibble about the differences between the number of 52 and 400, as if it really makes a fugging difference to the argument? You're fugging nuts.
You act as if me getting the number wrong is more imporant that what actually happened. Yep, you're a wacko, but I'm not surprised, as you're the same silly person who defends communism's genesis, and that "it just went wrong after it started out right."

"...On top of that, it was not the government that occupied the US embassy, it was a group of militant students..."

Yeah, I'm sure the government had NOTHING to do with it, and couldn't have put an end to it if they wanted to. A group of Iranain students were more powerful than the Iranian government. Take a sanity pill, BA, as your argument is truly ridiculous.

"...Do you realize what our history is in Iran? Ever heard of Operation Ajax? We supported a military coup of an DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader, supplanting him with the pro-Western Shah who would agree not to nationalize the petroleum industry and guarantee us a steady supply oil. What an honorable move on our part. Faux News doesn't ever talk about that. Ever. Imagine how we would feel about a country that financed the removal of our president..."

Did you see me disagree with that point? Getting one point right in an entire post does not make the entire post valid.

"...The most pathetic thing is that our media never attempts to be objective about Middle Eastern issues. People complain about a liberal bias but the bias in this area of news coverage is an absolute travesty. The sheep eat up all the hate coverage with a spoon, playing into the governments plan like a bunch of pathetic Mike Brown supporters."

Your "mainstream" media does a fine job of shilling for them. Wake up.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

My priorities are insane? I'm talking about facts, dude. The misspeaks of Obama that you meticulously pick over with great glee are not affecting anything or anyone. Talk about insane. You rip on Iran endlessly but never acknowledge what we've done to them. That's bias. I know you get hot about all this stuff, but your attempt to turn a huge error into my problem is really weak. I'm sorry I had to be the one to point out your massive mistake, chris.
I have no love of Iran but the one-sided slander that is propagated by the hate-mongers over here is more than I can stand. The idea that we could invade Iran on the basis of another intelligence bamboozling like Iraq/WMDs is absolutely outrageous after what we've been subjected to.
I'm glad you're acknowledging the media bias too, only now you can't call it a liberal bias.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

"...My priorities are insane? I'm talking about facts, dude. The misspeaks of Obama that you meticulously pick over with great glee are not affecting anything or anyone..."

Yes, you're argument in this case is insane. Let me show you how: When I "mis-speak" about how many hostages there were, you freak out over me getting the number wrong by 350. When a guy that is running for POTUS says that 10,000 people died in a tornado where only 12 died, you give him a break, being off by 9988 dead people, and call it "mis-speaking." Talk about showing your BIASES? LMAO.

Here's a hint, BA. I'm a private citizen posting on a message board. Obama is running for president. Get your priorities straight about what's "not affecting anything or anyone," and what isn't. You might think about holding HIM to a higher standard than me, when it comes to hyperbole regarding the facts.

"...Talk about insane. You rip on Iran endlessly but never acknowledge what we've done to them..."

What "we" did to them happened decades ago. I know you love trying to close the barn door after the horse is already out, but it's really quite useless. We're talking about NOW, BA, not 50 or 60 years ago.

"...That's bias. I have no love of Iran but the one-sided slander that is propagated by the hate-mongers over here is more than I can stand."

"Hate mongers." LMFAO at you. You defend Rev Wright, yet I'm a "hate-monger" for mentioning the fact that Iran took Americans hostage, and is now developing nukes.

You're ridiculous. You love to live in the past to explain the present. Did the Ayatollah permit the hostages to be taken in revenge for operation ajax? If not, then what's your point? That America made a mistake in 1953 so the hostages deserved what they got in 1979, and that nukes in the hands of muslim fanatics are fine with you? Great point!

"...The idea that we could invade Iran on the basis of another intelligence bamboozling like Iraq/WMDs is absolutely outrageous after what we've been subjected to..."

Iranian nuclear centrifuges are not even a matter of debate. Even your buddies at the UN know what they're doing and want them stopped. What's your point? That we made a mistake in Iraq, therefore, all future intelligence we have is worthless even when it's accepted by the entire world? Another great point!

"...I'm glad you're acknowledging the media bias too, only now you can't call it a liberal bias."

Hahaha. The funniest thing in this entire election cycle is watching Hillary supporters complain about the media bias for Obama, which conservatives have been dealing with for all these years. Nice of them to finally notice it! That you think there is a media bias in favor of conservatives in this country shows just how far you're willing to bury your head in the sand.

You need to live in the here and now, not in 1953. The Iranians are developing nukes, and the evidence is rock solid and accepted by almost every government under the sun except for maybe Hugo Chavez. Maybe you and he can get together and talk about how unfair the world is being to the Iranians.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

Well, once again we'll have to let history show who was wrong. It's clear what side you were on about Iraq, and we can see where the jury is leaning on that. Let's see how things play out in Iran. If you're right I'll be the first to apologize. Will you do the same if you're wrong again?
I'm not here to get in hot-headed arguments and throw insults. That may be you're game, but its not mine. You have nothing to support your Iran-bashing but quotes taken out of context and unsubstantiated intelligence. I need more than that on this issue, just like I needed more than yellow cake and aluminum tubes.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

"The war isn't won yet, but things are finally starting to go our way. I realize that is hard for a lot of people to understand."~~~Chris?

Chris did you REALLY post this?

I concede nothing in Iraq as far as "the jury" being in on it. Bush fugged it up, and worried more about placating his political enemies than properly prosecuting a war he started, but even despite his fuggups, things are getting better there. History will judge the war, but not in 2008. It all depends on what happens there in the future, kind of like waiting 3 years before you evaluate draft picks.

Look at the "bomb Iran" thread. Nowhere in that thread did I say anything negative about the Iranian people, and in fact, I supported them and their tradition of being intelligent, educated people, as I've done elsewhere on this board in other, long lost threads. I am not a "hate-monger." If I was a hate-monger, I'd say nuke them all, and forget about using conventional weapons to take out nuke development sites and their political leaders.

It is the desire of the interntaional community that Iran doesn't acquire nukes. It isn't just the US (although we will be the one to "take them out" if that's what everyone wants, at a cost to us, of course, which is what I'm against).

And it isn't even about the centrifuges, which they freely admit they have...
(article from a year ago. Just googled it using "Iran" and "centrifuges." Latest articles have them bragging about 6,000 centrifuges, not 3000, but this will do for now as I don't have the time to search for the most recent articles at this moment, which I've already seen).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21666121/

If they weren't constantly screeching about how they're going to wipe out their neighbors, then maybe I wouldn't care about them getting centrifuges, or even nukes! But constantly bragging about how they're going to wipe everyone out AND also bragging about how they're trying to get nuclear technology doesn't exactly make me want to be all "understanding" towards them. If Egypt or Jordan got nukes, I really wouldn't give a crap! They aren't talking about wiping out millions of people on a weekly basis.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

"..."The war isn't won yet, but things are finally starting to go our way. I realize that is hard for a lot of people to understand."~~~Chris?

Chris did you REALLY post this?"

I sure did. You know why? Because it's true. I'm sorry if that ruins your day, and the day of other people who can't accept what's happening over there now, or can't be bothered to find out for yourselves.

The month of May saw the lowest combat related death rate since the beginning of the war. 7. AL-Quaeda is admitting on their own websites, which we monitor, that they're beaten in Iraq. The Iraqi's finally got tired of hearing about how everyone that was being "blown up" by their bombers were "martyrs for Allah."
Go figure?

I'm sorry if this news is disappointing to you. I'm not making it up, I'm just relaying it.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

I have no doubt that areas have been secured, but are we 1 day closer to a democratic government maintaining security without our presence? The objective answer to that is no and it is unlikely we will ever be. Hence, the McCain 100 years if necessary answer. Simply put the minority does not and will not stand to be governed by the majority. They would prefer to kill each other. It shouldn't have been that hard to anticipate.

Now I know its not the Iraqi people doing this--we have no beef with them. Its "those" people, you know, the enemy, the people who are terrorists, the one's the Democrats and Obama support. Murf told me all about it.

Do people think the recent success is due to the surge or the cease fire of the Shiite and Shia tribes? Or both?

Democracy will never exist in Iraq. The people dont want it (at least a majority dont). And even if they did, some radical cleric would just oppress them until he was in power.



"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I love the new generation of thinking....

"WE DID THIS TO THEM"
"WE BACKED THEM INTO A CORNER"
"WE ARE THE EVIL NATION"

LMFAO!

Talking about the hostage deal, who is pitcured as one of those zanny students?
lol!

I am also loving this diplomacy stuff.
That has worked so well in the past, when dealing with these people.
lol!

As far as me playing a scare tactic....No, just looking back at history.
Under Bill Clinton this country had been attacked 14 ti