Like A Mofo Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Then here's irrefutable proof, genius. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html 59532[/snapback] I thought you were "Fair and Balanced?" B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I thought you were "Fair and Balanced?" B) 59544[/snapback] I am, for the most part. At least a lot more fair and balanced that the namesake. It's really starting to piss me off, however, that people automatically disregard or disparage some information simply because it was shown or posted on a specific site (like you did with CNN) without bothering to read or consider what it was. Every single news site reported this same story, mostly the exact same way. You just said CNN, enough said, meaning, of course, well it must be total bullschit. That, my friend, is the total bullschitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I am, for the most part. At least a lot more fair and balanced that the namesake. It's really starting to piss me off, however, that people automatically disregard or disparage some information simply because it was shown or posted on a specific site (like you did with CNN) without bothering to read or consider what it was. Every single news site reported this same story, mostly the exact same way. You just said CNN, enough said, meaning, of course, well it must be total bullschit. That, my friend, is the total bullschitt. 59563[/snapback] But what pisses me off is the CNN dosent even make an attempt to be Fair and Balanced (at least Fox tries to) and they to give this image they are a national network that just reports...and its so one sided its a disgrase. To be honest, Im probably gonna stop following politics in the 1st place, there is absolutely no way one can be totally fair and balanced, and its all becoming a big joke. And the majority in this country dont vote. Its embarassing, truly embarassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 This must be a mistake, Dubya assured us that there were WMDs in Iraq. That's why 1000+ US soldiers died over there since the end of combat oprations, right? Are you saying Dubya lied or that he is just plain stupid? 59461[/snapback] Komrade Kerry agreed with him and also says we should stay there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 You know the one thing I don't understand? Where was this information two years ago? He could have saved people a whole lotta trouble if he made this announcement before we invaded Iraq. Oh, wait. He didn't HAVE the information back then. So he has the information NOW! Okay. I got it. Some someone else is here to tell us there are no WMDs in Iraq. Whew. We should get rid of Bush cuz he lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 You know the one thing I don't understand? Where was this information two years ago? He could have saved people a whole lotta trouble if he made this announcement before we invaded Iraq. Oh, wait. He didn't HAVE the information back then. So he has the information NOW! Okay. I got it. Some someone else is here to tell us there are no WMDs in Iraq. Whew. We should get rid of Bush cuz he lied. 59613[/snapback] I just wrote about six paragraphs, then pulled it. What's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 You know the one thing I don't understand? Where was this information two years ago? He could have saved people a whole lotta trouble if he made this announcement before we invaded Iraq. Oh, wait. He didn't HAVE the information back then. So he has the information NOW! Okay. I got it. Some someone else is here to tell us there are no WMDs in Iraq. Whew. We should get rid of Bush cuz he lied. 59613[/snapback] No one here or elsewhere has ever answered this question for me, perhaps you can. According to many published reports, including responses from the Bush Administration itself, George Tenet was in Bush's office and Bush had just saw the intelligence, and said something to the effect of, "This is all we got?". And then Tenet said something to the effect of, "Don't worry, sir. It's a slam dunk." So why, in Bush's infinite wisdom, did he not look at George Tenet and say something to the effect of, "What is a slam dunk? Where is my slam dunk intelligence? What you just gave me was the turnaround, fall-away, no look 35 foot jumper evidence, which prompted me to question, "This is all we got?" Why did you give me this evidence and intelligence and call it a slam dunk. I want my slam dunk evidence!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckner's Glove Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 You know the one thing I don't understand? Where was this information two years ago? He could have saved people a whole lotta trouble if he made this announcement before we invaded Iraq. Oh, wait. He didn't HAVE the information back then. So he has the information NOW! Okay. I got it. Some someone else is here to tell us there are no WMDs in Iraq. Whew. We should get rid of Bush cuz he lied. 59613[/snapback] I don't care. He's the President and he's supposed to make the right decision and blew the biggest one of his first term when he invaded Iraq without irrefutable proof. He made us look like fools and bullies to the rest of the world, and although much of the sentiment on this board leans toward giving the old :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: to the rest of the world, the world is not as big a place as it used to be and it really does matter what the rest of them think. GW is a buffoon and can't regularly string two original thoughts together without making up new words and mumbling and stumbling through every other agonizong moment. He represents us badly. John Kerry at least seems to have something between his ears when he speaks and talks like he cares about our place in the rest of the world. I don't know how good of a president Kerry would make, but I know what a horrible president GW has been. Flame away GOP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I don't care. He's the President and he's supposed to make the right decision and blew the biggest one of his first term when he invaded Iraq without irrefutable proof. He made us look like fools and bullies to the rest of the world, and although much of the sentiment on this board leans toward giving the old :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: to the rest of the world, the world is not as big a place as it used to be and it really does matter what the rest of them think. GW is a buffoon and can't regularly string two original thoughts together without making up new words and mumbling and stumbling through every other agonizong moment. He represents us badly. John Kerry at least seems to have something between his ears when he speaks and talks like he cares about our place in the rest of the world. I don't know how good of a president Kerry would make, but I know what a horrible president GW has been. Flame away GOP! 59654[/snapback] Kerry agreed with Bush on this matter so I guess you could say the same thing about him.Kerry would have a kinder , gentler caring war :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Could you imagine the nature of the debate on Iraq if Saddam were still in power today and Bush were trying to convince us that, despite the U.N. starting to relax sanctions, we're all going to be okay? Do you think Kerry and Edwards would be in agreement? The libs live in a dream world and you can't handle the fact that tough decisions need to be made, not delayed. Libs --their favorite position is the fetal, and I've heard they suck a mean thumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Libs --their favorite position is the fetal, and I've heard they suck a mean thumb. 59709[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Libs --their favorite position is the fetal, and I've heard they suck a mean thumb. ROFL...That might be the best line I have ever seen. Too funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 ROFL...That might be the best line I have ever seen. Too funny. 59764[/snapback] You mean you didnt think the " Wrong war wrong time wrong place" was the funniest line you've heard all week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 You mean you didnt think the " Wrong war wrong time wrong place" was the funniest line you've heard all week? 59773[/snapback] Well, it was the funniest line that I've heard 400 times this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mary owen Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 you know what's really funny? this part of the story doesn't get as much attention as the one Steve posted. WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran. That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities. The report suggests that Saddam tried to improve relations with the United States in the 1990s, yet basked in his standing as the only leader to stand up to the world's superpower. It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq (news - web sites). And it says he was a narcissist who cared deeply about his legacy, making sure bricks were molded with his name in hopes people would admire them for centuries to come. Weapons hunter Charles Duelfer had access to information from U.S. interrogations of Saddam over several months. The former Iraqi dictator apparently talked not because he wanted to help the United States, but because he was concerned with his legacy, the report says. Much of his motivation in the quest for weapons of mass destruction came from neighboring Iran and the two countries' "long-standing rivalry over the centuries," including the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. "From Saddam's viewpoint, the Persian menace loomed large and was a challenge to his place in history," the report says. "This was an important motivation in his views on WMD — especially as it became obvious that Iran was pursuing the very capabilities he was denied," said the report, which found no evidence that Iraq had produced any such weapons after 1991. Saddam has been out of sight since his capture from a spider hole near Tikrit last December, except for an appearance in July at a preliminary hearing in Baghdad. Then, he defiantly scoffed at charges of war crimes and mass killings and said the charges had been engineered by President Bush (news - web sites) "to help him with his campaign." Officials have said that interrogations of Saddam, first by the CIA (news - web sites) and then by the FBI (news - web sites), have yielded little helpful information about weapons programs and the insurgency in Iraq. But Tuesday's report shows they have provided new insight into his thinking. Saddam was angry that other Persian Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, enjoyed good standing in the West. "His regime views the Gulf Arabs as undeserving," the report said. "They did not earn respect; the West simply wanted their oil." Iran, as much if not more than the United States, motivated his interest in nuclear weapons. "Nuclear programs were seen by Saddam as both a powerful lever and symbol of prestige," the report. "He also did not want to be second to the Persians." Despite years of hostility with the United States, Saddam had mixed feelings about the Americans and through the 1990s tested U.S. willingness to open a dialogue, the report said. He sent "very senior Iraqis" to make various proposals, such as assistance with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, working through intermediaries including Duelfer — the report's author. At the same time, Saddam got a boost from America's hostility. "He accrued power and prestige far beyond his inherent weight by positioning himself as the only leader to stand up to the last superpower," the report said. At a Senate hearing, Duelfer was asked why — if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion — he did not simply comply with U.S. and U.N. demands in an attempt to avert the war. Duelfer said Saddam's instincts were always to negotiate — to seek something in return before giving something up. "He had not realized the nature of the ground shift in the international community," after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer said. Until the end, Saddam saw himself as a great leader of a great nation, the report says. With an eye to history, he had bricks made for use in the historic city of Babylon molded with the phrase, "Made in the era of Saddam Hussein," mimicking the ancient bricks there. "This narcissism characterizes his actions," the report says. "And while it is not always visible, it is always there." END http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...ays_2&printer=1 Bush always said it was a PRE-EMPTIVE strike. Sounds to me like Saddam was hellbent on doing something. He is INSANE much like Hitler was. I still support the President's decision to go to war in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wham Rocks Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 "Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year." Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, David Kay, and now James Duelfer? Geez, talk about jumping on the "no WMDs in Iraq" bandwagon. Why not just totally stab our glorious president in the back while the slavering islamo-terrorist hordes are at our doorstep! Friggin' liberal media and their friggin' liberal lies. Everyone knows Iraq had WMD! WMDs have already been found like a million gazillion times in Iraq. Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity say so everyday. Get a friggin' radio, poor-ass liberals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts