| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Enkidu the Atheist" |
| Date: |
13 Nov 2005 10:02:43 PM |
| Object: |
Democrats: It’s the War |
Democrats: It’s the War
By Dennis Kucinich
http://tinyurl.com/9effs
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked. It is counterproductive,
strengthening al-Qaeda and weakening the moral authority of the United
States. It is deadly: Many Americans, and many, many more Iraqis, have
been killed or injured as a result of the fighting. And it is costly:
Well over $250 billion in taxpayer funds have already been spent, with no
end in sight.
It is also increasingly unpopular. For all these reasons, plus the
increased spotlight that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita put on how much the
war is draining resources desperately needed at home, Democrats should
clearly call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If Democrats do not
make this the centerpiece of their campaign in 2006, they risk repeating
recent history, in which they failed to recover seats in the House and
Senate.
National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to
ignore the war, and it didn’t work politically. During the 2002 election
cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their
side—the president’s party always loses seats in the mid-term
election—the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the
president to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in
a Rose Garden ceremony. “Let no light show” between Democrats and
President Bush on foreign policy was the leadership’s strategy, and it
yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a
president increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a
recession.
Then, in 2004, with the president vulnerable on the war, the Democratic
Party again sacrificed the opportunity to distinguish itself from Bush.
Members avoided the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the Party platform,
omitted it from campaign speeches and deleted it from the national
convention.
Why is it an unconscionable political blunder to sweep the war and
occupation of Iraq under the rug? Because the war is one of the most
potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots
activity all over the country.
President Bush led the country into war based on false information,
falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war
and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for
jihadists who want to kill Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking
resentment in the Muslim world.
Bush’s war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the
world for America after our 9/11 losses. He enriched his cronies at
Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he
diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the
masterminds of the 9/11 attack. Instead, we are mired in an occupation
which has already cost over 2,000 American lives and the lives of tens of
thousands of Iraqis.
The issue of the war clearly distinguishes what is wrong with Republican
rule. Republicans in Congress won’t extricate the United States from the
quagmire the president has gotten us into. They have refused to
investigate what role the White House played in manipulating pre-war
intelligence. They refused to investigate the Downing Street memo.
Democrats, on the other hand, mostly voted against the war: Two-thirds of
House Democrats and half of Senate Democrats opposed the war in Iraq.
Democrats can draw no clearer distinction with the president and the
Republican Congress than over this war.
Every major poll confirms that the war is a loser for the president and
his party. Consider one of the most prominent: The ABC/Washington Post
poll, which has surveyed public opinion on the war regularly since March
2003. Responses to all pertinent key questions clearly show eroding
support for the war. Support for the president’s handling of Iraq has
steadily fallen; belief that the war was worth fighting has fallen;
belief that the number of U.S. casualties are an acceptable cost of the
war has steadily fallen; belief that the war has contributed to U.S.
long-term security has steadily fallen, and support for keeping forces in
Iraq has steadily fallen. There are no exceptions to this trend.
Right is on our side, and public opinion is trending our way. In 2006,
Democrats must break from the past and run on the issue of quick
withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. The stakes are high: Unless Democrats
stand for ending the war in Iraq, this country will not leave Iraq, and
Democrats their minority status in Washington, for a long time to come.
Of course, no party can win votes on the strength of one issue. Ending
the war in Iraq must be at the centerpiece of a campaign that includes
standing for national health care and preserving Social Security. This is
the constellation of issues with which Democrats can take back the
country.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"Deep within the heart of every evangelist lies the wreck of a car
salesman."
-- H.L. Mencken
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
13 Nov 2005 11:20:48 PM |
|
|
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was necessary?
Did they lie?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
13 Nov 2005 11:25:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was necessary?
Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF it
became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be true.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They saw
the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your stupidity, however.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
13 Nov 2005 11:45:58 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was
necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF it
became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They saw
the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate Intelligence
Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the material Bush saw
was *more* alarmist than what the Congress got.
<...>
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 12:00:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was
necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF it
became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They saw
the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate Intelligence
Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the material Bush saw
was *more* alarmist than what the Congress got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that omitted the
qualifications and warnings about the sources and reliability of the
data that Bush used to justify his ill-conceived invasion. This is
well known - don't even try to deny it unless you want to look
foolish.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has not yet done an
inquiry into what was omitted in the NIE that Congress saw. Your
statement is a falsehood. Or do you want to try to dispute the fact
that Bush issued an order that limited access to classified
intelligence to only 8 members of Congress?
Oh, and from the first Senate Report:
"Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the
caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their
judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified
National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded
assessments.
"Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in
the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the
unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In
both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting
agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on
the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided
readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the
debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues.
"Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002
White Paper on Iraq's potential to deliver biological agents conveyed
a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the
classified National Intelligence Estimate."
So, no. Congress didn't get the same intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 01:06:35 AM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rfkfn1tvcl9js8pog02uo1sh7rpgat8ktn@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was
necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF it
became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They saw
the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate Intelligence
Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the material Bush saw
was *more* alarmist than what the Congress got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that omitted the
qualifications and warnings about the sources and reliability of the
data that Bush used to justify his ill-conceived invasion. This is
well known - don't even try to deny it unless you want to look
foolish.
I'm perfectly willing to make you look gullible. You've fallen for some
very easily refuted antiwar spin.
From the Robb-Silberman report:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the
Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam
Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were simply wrong."
and
"The daily intelligence briefings given to you (the President) before the
Iraq war were flawed. Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition
of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was
rebuilding its WMD programs."
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has not yet done an
inquiry into what was omitted in the NIE that Congress saw. Your
statement is a falsehood.
No, it's not.
Or do you want to try to dispute the fact
that Bush issued an order that limited access to classified
intelligence to only 8 members of Congress?
Oh, and from the first Senate Report:
"Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the
caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their
judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified
National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded
assessments.
Notice one thing: "to the public".
Not "to Congress".
"Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in
the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the
unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In
both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting
agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on
the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided
readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the
debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues.
"Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002
White Paper on Iraq's potential to deliver biological agents conveyed
a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the
classified National Intelligence Estimate."
Conclusion 83: The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration
officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change
their judgements related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
capabilities.
So, no. Congress didn't get the same intelligence.
The Intelligence Committees had access to the full classified NIE, not the
sanitized version that was published to *the public*. As it turns out, most
Congresscritters didn't even bother to read what they got.
So no, you're just not paying close attention to the details in what you're
quoting.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 01:27:38 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:06:35 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rfkfn1tvcl9js8pog02uo1sh7rpgat8ktn@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was
necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF it
became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They saw
the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate Intelligence
Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the material Bush saw
was *more* alarmist than what the Congress got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that omitted the
qualifications and warnings about the sources and reliability of the
data that Bush used to justify his ill-conceived invasion. This is
well known - don't even try to deny it unless you want to look
foolish.
I'm perfectly willing to make you look gullible. You've fallen for some
very easily refuted antiwar spin.
From the Robb-Silberman report:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the
Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam
Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were simply wrong."
Hey, way to NOT address the facts.
The FACTS are that the President did not share all the relevant data
with Congress.
and
"The daily intelligence briefings given to you (the President) before the
Iraq war were flawed. Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition
of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was
rebuilding its WMD programs."
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has not yet done an
inquiry into what was omitted in the NIE that Congress saw. Your
statement is a falsehood.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is, since what you claim happened, didn't.
Or do you want to try to dispute the fact
that Bush issued an order that limited access to classified
intelligence to only 8 members of Congress?
Oh, and from the first Senate Report:
"Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the
caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their
judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified
National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded
assessments.
Notice one thing: "to the public".
And to those members of Congress without access to classified material
(who lacked access because Bush took it away). Or are they not part of
the public now?
Not "to Congress".
See above. When you can address the facts, c'mon back.
"Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in
the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the
unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In
both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting
agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on
the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided
readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the
debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues.
"Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002
White Paper on Iraq's potential to deliver biological agents conveyed
a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the
classified National Intelligence Estimate."
Conclusion 83: The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration
officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change
their judgements related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
capabilities.
So, no. Congress didn't get the same intelligence.
The Intelligence Committees had access to the full classified NIE, not the
sanitized version that was published to *the public*. As it turns out, most
Congresscritters didn't even bother to read what they got.
So no, you're just not paying close attention to the details in what you're
quoting.
I see that you're so desperate to excuse the reckless conduct of Bush
that facts just don't penetrate. Well, you're free to wallow in your
ignorance and stupidity. Don't take others with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 04:00:42 AM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:8rpfn19ugjkqa40p161fha561nqkhubd4p@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:06:35 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rfkfn1tvcl9js8pog02uo1sh7rpgat8ktn@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it
was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF
it became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be
true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They
saw the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate Intelligence
Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the material Bush
saw was *more* alarmist than what the Congress got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that omitted
the qualifications and warnings about the sources and reliability of
the data that Bush used to justify his ill-conceived invasion. This
is well known - don't even try to deny it unless you want to look
foolish.
I'm perfectly willing to make you look gullible. You've fallen for
some very easily refuted antiwar spin.
From the Robb-Silberman report:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the
Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you
about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were
simply wrong."
Hey, way to NOT address the facts.
The FACTS are that the President did not share all the relevant data
with Congress.
Hey, way to NOT admit that Congress got their report right from the
Intelligence Community, and that Bush didn't even try to influence what
was put in it.
and
"The daily intelligence briefings given to you (the President) before
the Iraq war were flawed. Through attention-grabbing headlines and
repetition of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case
that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD programs."
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has not yet done an
inquiry into what was omitted in the NIE that Congress saw. Your
statement is a falsehood.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is, since what you claim happened, didn't.
No, it's not.
Or do you want to try to dispute the fact
that Bush issued an order that limited access to classified
intelligence to only 8 members of Congress?
Oh, and from the first Senate Report:
"Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the
caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their
judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified
National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded
assessments.
Notice one thing: "to the public".
And to those members of Congress without access to classified material
(who lacked access because Bush took it away).
The ones who were so busy leaking material that they were a threat to
national security?
Or are they not part of
the public now?
No, they're part of *CONGRESS*.
Not "to Congress".
See above. When you can address the facts, c'mon back.
Been there, done that, still right here.
"Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions
in the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included
in the unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded
completely. In both cases in which there were dissenting opinions,
the dissenting agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject
matter experts on the issues in question. Excluding the names of the
agencies provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature
and extent of the debate within the Intelligence Community regarding
these issues.
"Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002
White Paper on Iraq's potential to deliver biological agents
conveyed a level of threat to the United States homeland
inconsistent with the classified National Intelligence Estimate."
Conclusion 83: The Committee did not find any evidence that
Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure
analysts to change their judgements related to Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction capabilities.
So, no. Congress didn't get the same intelligence.
The Intelligence Committees had access to the full classified NIE, not
the sanitized version that was published to *the public*. As it turns
out, most Congresscritters didn't even bother to read what they got.
So no, you're just not paying close attention to the details in what
you're quoting.
I see that you're so desperate to excuse the reckless conduct of Bush
that facts just don't penetrate. Well, you're free to wallow in your
ignorance and stupidity. Don't take others with you.
I see that you're so deeply mired in Bush Deragement Syndrome that
you'll deny the plain facts *that you quoted yourself* in favor of the
spin you've been taught by your propaganda masters.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 04:29:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:00:42 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:8rpfn19ugjkqa40p161fha561nqkhubd4p@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:06:35 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rfkfn1tvcl9js8pog02uo1sh7rpgat8ktn@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it
was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF
it became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be
true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They
saw the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate Intelligence
Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the material Bush
saw was *more* alarmist than what the Congress got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that omitted
the qualifications and warnings about the sources and reliability of
the data that Bush used to justify his ill-conceived invasion. This
is well known - don't even try to deny it unless you want to look
foolish.
I'm perfectly willing to make you look gullible. You've fallen for
some very easily refuted antiwar spin.
From the Robb-Silberman report:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the
Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you
about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were
simply wrong."
Hey, way to NOT address the facts.
The FACTS are that the President did not share all the relevant data
with Congress.
Hey, way to NOT admit that Congress got their report right from the
Intelligence Community, and that Bush didn't even try to influence what
was put in it.
*****. Congress did NOT see the same report that Bush did, and you
know it, and I've shown it to be so. It's been plainly stated that the
NIE given to Congress was lacking much of the intelligence community's
reservations and qualifications included in the one Bush got that made
his conclusions much less believable.
But, of course, you won't be honest enough to admit that, even with
the facts staring you in the face.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 04:50:42 AM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:vg4gn1pg36dh6ial3cv0m0cc8vaerkov9f@4ax.com:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:00:42 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:8rpfn19ugjkqa40p161fha561nqkhubd4p@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:06:35 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rfkfn1tvcl9js8pog02uo1sh7rpgat8ktn@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war
was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it
was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that
it either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force
IF it became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be
true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They
saw the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate
Intelligence Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the
material Bush saw was *more* alarmist than what the Congress got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that omitted
the qualifications and warnings about the sources and reliability
of the data that Bush used to justify his ill-conceived invasion.
This is well known - don't even try to deny it unless you want to
look foolish.
I'm perfectly willing to make you look gullible. You've fallen for
some very easily refuted antiwar spin.
From the Robb-Silberman report:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that
the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals
told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed.
They were simply wrong."
Hey, way to NOT address the facts.
The FACTS are that the President did not share all the relevant data
with Congress.
Hey, way to NOT admit that Congress got their report right from the
Intelligence Community, and that Bush didn't even try to influence
what was put in it.
*****. Congress did NOT see the same report that Bush did, and you
know it, and I've shown it to be so.
No, you didn't. You tried to pretend that the *public* report was the
one given to Congress.
It's been plainly stated that the
NIE given to Congress was lacking much of the intelligence community's
reservations and qualifications included in the one Bush got that made
his conclusions much less believable.
No, Adam, that's not what the report says. You're reading something into
that report that isn't there. I pointed that out to you.
But, of course, you won't be honest enough to admit that, even with
the facts staring you in the face.
You don't have any facts to stare me in the face, Adam. Not any.
But hey, hold onto that BDS all you want, dude. Hold on real tight
because Bush is going to choke the Democrats with their own words.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 05:03:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:50:42 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:vg4gn1pg36dh6ial3cv0m0cc8vaerkov9f@4ax.com:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:00:42 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:8rpfn19ugjkqa40p161fha561nqkhubd4p@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:06:35 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rfkfn1tvcl9js8pog02uo1sh7rpgat8ktn@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war
was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it
was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that
it either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force
IF it became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be
true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did. They
saw the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate
Intelligence Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the
material Bush saw was *more* alarmist than what the Congress got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that omitted
the qualifications and warnings about the sources and reliability
of the data that Bush used to justify his ill-conceived invasion.
This is well known - don't even try to deny it unless you want to
look foolish.
I'm perfectly willing to make you look gullible. You've fallen for
some very easily refuted antiwar spin.
From the Robb-Silberman report:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that
the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals
told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed.
They were simply wrong."
Hey, way to NOT address the facts.
The FACTS are that the President did not share all the relevant data
with Congress.
Hey, way to NOT admit that Congress got their report right from the
Intelligence Community, and that Bush didn't even try to influence
what was put in it.
*****. Congress did NOT see the same report that Bush did, and you
know it, and I've shown it to be so.
No, you didn't. You tried to pretend that the *public* report was the
one given to Congress.
It's been plainly stated that the
NIE given to Congress was lacking much of the intelligence community's
reservations and qualifications included in the one Bush got that made
his conclusions much less believable.
No, Adam, that's not what the report says. You're reading something into
that report that isn't there. I pointed that out to you.
And you're wrong, but it hasn't stopped you yet.
Somewhere in that tiny mind you realize that Bush bent you over and
continues to do so, but you're too stupid to actually do something
about it.
When Clinton lied about a *****, you were all over him, right? But
Bush lies to get a war going and all you can do is continue to suck
his *****...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 05:09:39 AM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:1i6gn193eghbge1ug1mkkorlu2su7cmhbm@4ax.com:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:50:42 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:vg4gn1pg36dh6ial3cv0m0cc8vaerkov9f@4ax.com:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:00:42 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:8rpfn19ugjkqa40p161fha561nqkhubd4p@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:06:35 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rfkfn1tvcl9js8pog02uo1sh7rpgat8ktn@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-
media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war
was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say
it was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that
it either was not, or that they would authorize the use of
force IF it became necessary - a condition which was never
shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did.
They saw the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate
Intelligence Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the
material Bush saw was *more* alarmist than what the Congress
got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that
omitted the qualifications and warnings about the sources and
reliability of the data that Bush used to justify his
ill-conceived invasion. This is well known - don't even try to
deny it unless you want to look foolish.
I'm perfectly willing to make you look gullible. You've fallen for
some very easily refuted antiwar spin.
From the Robb-Silberman report:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that
the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals
told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed.
They were simply wrong."
Hey, way to NOT address the facts.
The FACTS are that the President did not share all the relevant
data with Congress.
Hey, way to NOT admit that Congress got their report right from the
Intelligence Community, and that Bush didn't even try to influence
what was put in it.
*****. Congress did NOT see the same report that Bush did, and
you know it, and I've shown it to be so.
No, you didn't. You tried to pretend that the *public* report was the
one given to Congress.
It's been plainly stated that the
NIE given to Congress was lacking much of the intelligence
community's reservations and qualifications included in the one Bush
got that made his conclusions much less believable.
No, Adam, that's not what the report says. You're reading something
into that report that isn't there. I pointed that out to you.
And you're wrong, but it hasn't stopped you yet.
Somewhere in that tiny mind you realize that Bush bent you over and
continues to do so, but you're too stupid to actually do something
about it.
Thanks for conceding so gracefully.
When Clinton lied about a *****, you were all over him, right? But
Bush lies to get a war going and all you can do is continue to suck
his *****...
You'd do a lot better to just quit the thread when you lose instead of
going for the insults.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 05:16:57 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 05:09:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:1i6gn193eghbge1ug1mkkorlu2su7cmhbm@4ax.com:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:50:42 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:vg4gn1pg36dh6ial3cv0m0cc8vaerkov9f@4ax.com:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:00:42 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:8rpfn19ugjkqa40p161fha561nqkhubd4p@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:06:35 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rfkfn1tvcl9js8pog02uo1sh7rpgat8ktn@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-
media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war
was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say
it was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that
it either was not, or that they would authorize the use of
force IF it became necessary - a condition which was never
shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Second, Congress didn't see the same intelligence Bush did.
They saw the sanitized, don't contradict Bush version.
That claim has long since been disproved by the Senate
Intelligence Committee's Robb-Silberman report. If anything, the
material Bush saw was *more* alarmist than what the Congress
got.
Nope. There was a different NIE written for Congress that
omitted the qualifications and warnings about the sources and
reliability of the data that Bush used to justify his
ill-conceived invasion. This is well known - don't even try to
deny it unless you want to look foolish.
I'm perfectly willing to make you look gullible. You've fallen for
some very easily refuted antiwar spin.
From the Robb-Silberman report:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that
the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals
told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed.
They were simply wrong."
Hey, way to NOT address the facts.
The FACTS are that the President did not share all the relevant
data with Congress.
Hey, way to NOT admit that Congress got their report right from the
Intelligence Community, and that Bush didn't even try to influence
what was put in it.
*****. Congress did NOT see the same report that Bush did, and
you know it, and I've shown it to be so.
No, you didn't. You tried to pretend that the *public* report was the
one given to Congress.
It's been plainly stated that the
NIE given to Congress was lacking much of the intelligence
community's reservations and qualifications included in the one Bush
got that made his conclusions much less believable.
No, Adam, that's not what the report says. You're reading something
into that report that isn't there. I pointed that out to you.
And you're wrong, but it hasn't stopped you yet.
Somewhere in that tiny mind you realize that Bush bent you over and
continues to do so, but you're too stupid to actually do something
about it.
Thanks for conceding so gracefully.
When Clinton lied about a *****, you were all over him, right? But
Bush lies to get a war going and all you can do is continue to suck
his *****...
You'd do a lot better to just quit the thread when you lose instead of
going for the insults.
Ah, the old 'declare the other guy lost' trick. Yep, I know you're in
trouble when you resort to that.
Keep suckin', Fred. Bush loooves it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_Democrats:_It=92s_the_War?= |
14 Nov 2005 05:16:42 AM |
|
|
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
But hey, hold onto that BDS all you want, dude. Hold on real tight
because Bush is going to choke the Democrats with their own words.
Bush couldn't choke his own chicken with Karl Rove helping.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_Democrats:_It=92s_the_War?= |
14 Nov 2005 05:15:24 AM |
|
|
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the
Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you about
Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were simply
wrong."
An admission that Bush was dead wrong. He fucked up. When are impeachment
proceedings going to start? Oh yeah, Congress is run by cronies. We will
have to wait until early 2007. Then it's Bye Bye Bushie.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 01:16:30 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:cPqdnRPC4rz0gOXeRVn-uw@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the
Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told
you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were
simply wrong."
An admission that Bush was dead wrong. He fucked up. When are
impeachment proceedings going to start? Oh yeah, Congress is run by
cronies. We will have to wait until early 2007. Then it's Bye Bye
Bushie.
And then you can complain about President Cheney. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_Democrats:_It=92s_the_War?= |
15 Nov 2005 09:23:11 AM |
|
|
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:cPqdnRPC4rz0gOXeRVn-uw@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the
Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told
you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were
simply wrong."
An admission that Bush was dead wrong. He fucked up. When are
impeachment proceedings going to start? Oh yeah, Congress is run by
cronies. We will have to wait until early 2007. Then it's Bye Bye
Bushie.
And then you can complain about President Cheney. :-)
Cheney will go down before Bush does.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_Democrats:_It=92s_the_War?= |
14 Nov 2005 05:11:11 AM |
|
|
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was
necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF it
became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Then let us vote them out of office too.
And quit violating Stone's Law.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 05:14:20 AM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in news:79OdnVbAnLfxgeXeRVn-
vQ@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was
necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF it
became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Then let us vote them out of office too.
And quit violating Stone's Law.
What's the matter, towelie? Their own actions and words choking you too?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?It=92s?= the War |
14 Nov 2005 03:53:22 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:79OdnVbAnLfxgeXeRVn- vQ@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war
was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it
was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF
it became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be
true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Then let us vote them out of office too.
And quit violating Stone's Law.
What's the matter, towelie? Their own actions and words choking you
too?
Again, all those WMDs, weapons systems, stockpiles of nerve gas werre
not there.
Rather thatn saying that being fooled by bad intelligence made AWOL
Bush right, we should be saying teh CIA is incopmetent.
That should worry true Americans, true patriots.
We do not want outr Congress making bad decisions based on bad
intelligence created . We do not want that excuse to be used
to brush off investigation and reform as to how the CIA, NSA, DSA giot
it all so wrong, for so many years.
All YOU want is a bad excuse to excuse Bush's obvious lying.
You don't care about anything else. Not exactly smart, not patriotic,
not being a good American.
--
"If lightning is the anger of the gods, the
gods are concerned mostly with trees."
- Lao Tse
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 04:23:10 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:11nhbognduaeqac@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:79OdnVbAnLfxgeXeRVn- vQ@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war
was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it
was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF
it became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be
true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Then let us vote them out of office too.
And quit violating Stone's Law.
What's the matter, towelie? Their own actions and words choking you
too?
Again, all those WMDs, weapons systems, stockpiles of nerve gas werre
not there.
Again, that's not the point.
Rather thatn saying that being fooled by bad intelligence made AWOL
Bush right, we should be saying teh CIA is incopmetent.
Well yeah, duh. That's why Bush appointed a hardliner to force some
needed reforms, which is why the CIA has been fighting back with leaks.
That should worry true Americans, true patriots.
We do not want outr Congress making bad decisions based on bad
intelligence created . We do not want that excuse to be used
to brush off investigation and reform as to how the CIA, NSA, DSA giot
it all so wrong, for so many years.
That investigation has been done already.
All YOU want is a bad excuse to excuse Bush's obvious lying.
It's obvious that Bush didn't lie.
You don't care about anything else. Not exactly smart, not patriotic,
not being a good American.
Project much, Barwell?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?It=92s?= the War |
15 Nov 2005 10:01:07 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:11nhbognduaeqac@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:79OdnVbAnLfxgeXeRVn- vQ@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war
was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say
it was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that
it either was not, or that they would authorize the use of
force IF it became necessary - a condition which was never
shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Then let us vote them out of office too.
And quit violating Stone's Law.
What's the matter, towelie? Their own actions and words choking
you too?
Again, all those WMDs, weapons systems, stockpiles of nerve gas
werre not there.
Again, that's not the point.
YES THAT IS THE BLOODY POINT YOU STUPID *****!
Bush lied.
he lied about KNOWING where the WMDs were.
he lied about Saddam being part of the 9/11 terrorism.
he lied about Saddam supporting Bin Laden.
he lied, Rumsfeld lied, Shoes Rice Lied, Cheney
lied, they all lied and lied and lied and lied.
I listened on radio long before teh war wwhere Scott Ritter debunked
the WMD claims so if he knew, then its is obvious that everybody else
in teh CIA should have known, and probably did.
What happened was we were lied to and lied to, and lied to.
they were stupid clumsy lies but YIOU sunusuvbitch rioght wingers
played stupid and REFUSE TO THINK< REASON<, OR NOTICE tTHE TORRENT OF
LIES!
Even todoay people run YOUR ugly snout in the lies and you refuse to
admit iot because you have absolutely no intellectual honesty at all.
You are so stupid it hurts to contemplate how stupid you are,. you are
just as stupid as Duke when he babbles on denying stuff that has bene
proven to him 100 times, you do exactly the same thing.
He denies the contradictions and stupidities of the bible pointed out
to him 100 times and tyou just deny the lies and stuoidies of Bush
and his adminstration.
Both of yiou are stupid, and willful stupidity is teh worst
characteristic a man can have.
I cannot make yo u think, reason or bbe honest.
Al I can do is bat yioutr stupidity down lest
you mislead others with your sheer repetetive
denials, your utter refusal to reason, and
refusal to shut the ***** up.
The prohblem with YOU is you are a sucker for lies and wil gobble them
down again if another shitty far right Bush comes along and spews
lies at you.
And you will blunder into a voting booth and keep these sort of lioars
in office.
You are the sort destroying this nation with you incredible utter lack
of sense and honesty and burning urdge ti believe every lie a far
right moron like AWOL tells you.
I hate your guts because its your kind that has destroyed
this nation.
A war we have been lied into that cannot be walked away from and we
can probably not win.
$80 billion a year for thsi war wasted. A ***** for brains president
that is creating deficits of $535 billion a year, the record for
planet easrth.
A ***** monkey that has single handedly made America one of the most
despised and hated nations on earth, and still seems intent on
compounding that.
A man who lies and won't stop lying and is creating chaos.
A nation facing economic decline while he is stil intent on more
massive tax cuts for the rich.
A corrupt adminstration where we see daily, new corruptions, new
outrages, the latest the widening ring of Jack Abramoff bribees.
And the more incompetent he is the more you kiss his rosy red
*****. The more he lies the more you deny it.
AWOL is utterly incompetent and so are you.
AWOL is a liar and you gobble down each lie and beg for more.
25 years of you far right stupid ***** monkies destroying
MY NATION in name of your deeply stupid and utterly
incompetent ideology.
You are doing to America what 70 years of Marxists
did to Russia.
STUPID *****!
--
"If lightning is the anger of the gods, the
gods are concerned mostly with trees."
- Lao Tse
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_Democrats:_It=92s_the_War?= |
14 Nov 2005 05:39:56 AM |
|
|
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in news:79OdnVbAnLfxgeXeRVn-
vQ@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it was
necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF it
became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Then let us vote them out of office too.
And quit violating Stone's Law.
What's the matter, towelie? Their own actions and words choking you too?
Huh?
Are you back on the cocaine?
Seriously, I have no idea what you just said.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
14 Nov 2005 01:14:52 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:mYudncSPOPK0vuXeRVn-pw@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in news:79OdnVbAnLfxgeXeRVn-
vQ@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:rnifn11m81ldltibufln740a65bsfif1s8@fe06.highwinds-media.phx:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:20:48 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 22:02:43 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was
unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked.
Then why did the 'rats, from 'rat willie clinton on down, say it
was necessary? Did they lie?
First, not all Democrats said it was necessary. Most said that it
either was not, or that they would authorize the use of force IF
it became necessary - a condition which was never shown to be
true.
They voted to authorize the use of force anyway.
Then let us vote them out of office too.
And quit violating Stone's Law.
What's the matter, towelie? Their own actions and words choking you
too?
Huh?
Are you back on the cocaine?
Seriously, I have no idea what you just said.
Well, the Democrats are choking on their own words from before the war,
and they're choking big time on their vote for the war. So I guess that
you're choking on those things too, since you're complaining about my
even mentioning them.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_Democrats:_It=92s_the_War?= |
15 Nov 2005 09:22:51 AM |
|
|
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
What's the matter, towelie? Their own actions and words choking you
too?
Huh?
Are you back on the cocaine?
Seriously, I have no idea what you just said.
Well, the Democrats are choking on their own words from before the war,
and they're choking big time on their vote for the war. So I guess that
you're choking on those things too, since you're complaining about my
even mentioning them.
I was always against the war. So choke on that.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats: It’s the War |
15 Nov 2005 01:56:43 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bJKdnTaCJ_B_NeTeRVn-vA@centurytel.net:
TV's Fred Stone wrote:
What's the matter, towelie? Their own actions and words choking you
too?
Huh?
Are you back on the cocaine?
Seriously, I have no idea what you just said.
Well, the Democrats are choking on their own words from before the
war, and they're choking big time on their vote for the war. So I
guess that you're choking on those things too, since you're
complaining about my even mentioning them.
I was always against the war. So choke on that.
Me too.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Hey, just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
-- Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
