Your a great man GWB!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


That and having political campaign pics in sigs.

Guess it's time to get a democrats in 2004 logo in my sig.

We don't care, you can't vote here!

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


You've chosen an apt moniker. Wonderful bird-brained attitude of agree with me or you're an idiot.

As for the stories being true or not/published or not: It may be that GWB asked that they not be covered. Now THAT would be a true sign of honour. Doing service and helping without looking for political payback.

But it's incredible that the Republican/right wing views on AO are tollerated so liberally while political discussion is supposed to be forbidden. I'd have thought that as soon as GWBs name was mentioned the political alarm bells should have gone off.

That and having political campaign pics in sigs.

Guess it's time to get a democrats in 2004 logo in my sig.

Ever notice how there are no mods that arent conservatives?

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
Ever notice how there are no mods that arent conservatives?

They seem at least a little open-minded. But the crap Rooster puts out would earn a liberal poster a short vacation. Threads of a similar but liberal nature have been shut down almost immediately after the AO Right blasts in with attacks and quick complaints to the moderators.

Granted I'm from pinko-commie Canada, and even some of the ideas from our conservatives would rankle died-in-the-wool American Republicans.

More than a few of the voices on AO could learn well to attack ideas and not people. Lables and name-calling just highlight how narrow-minded and unwilling to question your beliefs you are.

Pathetic ad hominem attacks don't phase me. Just take solace that they're too feeble to utter coherent thought.

[Rooster]

Its not a idea posting on this message board, now is it. And if the mods want to cut out all political discussion, fine. But as long as a liberal is left on these forums to post garbage, I'll be around to post the truth.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
Its not a idea posting on this message board, now is it. And if the mods want to cut out all political discussion, fine. But as long as a liberal is left on these forums to post garbage, I'll be around to post the truth.

you soothsayer, you:o

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Granted I'm from pinko-commie Canada, and even some of the ideas from our conservatives would rankle died-in-the-wool American Republicans.

Are you sure you aren't a centrist like other posters here?

More than a few of the voices on AO could learn well to attack ideas and not people. Lables and name-calling just highlight how narrow-minded and unwilling to question your beliefs you are.

Pathetic ad hominem attacks don't phase me. Just take solace that they're too feeble to utter coherent thought.

That goes for both sides right?

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
When I was younger; not now.

That's my point. How can you not lean right, but be conservative?

ugh.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by mcveighr
And isn't Bush the one that refused to sign the anti-landmine treaty? I don't see him praying for any civillians that get killed by mines that the US planted.

And what would that have done?

No seriously, you think the Iraqi army would be rolling into the battle and Captain Bob would have yelled back "Hey guys, leave the landmines in the shed, we're not supposed to use them".

Puh-lease.

Landmines happen to be a very important tool for war. They allow you to deny territory without a commitment of forces. Landmines save lives! (since landmines reduce the risk of firefight for a given piece of land)

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by mcveighr
Maybe its cause Saddam made Daddy look like the fool he is a few years back.

Then why call attention to it by kicking up the war again?

That's a very weak posistion, and some people seem to love taking it. I would not for a moment think any commander in chief to be so reckless as to put lives in danger because daddy looks foolish. I wouldn't even accuse Clinton of such a thing, and I truly loathe that man.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


That's my point. How can you not lean right, but be conservative?

ugh.

I do lean right, if I said that I didn't I must have been drunk.

[Butterfingers]

Originally posted by mcveighr
Don't give me that crap about not listnening to the UN. Bush had a plan for post war Iraq before he was president, he doesn't care what the UN says.

Maybe its cause Saddam made Daddy look like the fool he is a few years back.

Please... Do your research before making such comments Regime Change In Iraq has been a long standing policy of the United States.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY Cphilip... beutifully stated I must say...

Acts of Iraq preceeding now:

1980 Invasion of Iran
1988 relocation and killing of between 50,000 and 180,000 Kurdish Civilians
1990 Invasion of Kuwait
1993 Attempted Assasination of Former President Bush
1994 Staging of 80,000 troups near Kuwait
1996 begining of trend to deny weapons inspectors access to facilities and documents as required by the UN

Now lets look at the previous Administrations actions towords Iraq and thier perception of the "threat" that was posed.

October 31st 1998 President Clinton signs the "Iraq Liberation Act" which states "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Taken straight from the Act itself.

Same year 1998 Clinton orders the bombing of Iraq in attempt to kill Saddam. Operation Desert Fox. On the eve of that bombing he gave a speach in which he states "Mark my words, (Saddam) will develop weapons of mass destruction and will deploy them and he will use them." Direct quote.

So you see the escalation and threat was well established prior to 911. And the escalation of events against regimes that might promote or harbor terrorist activities was already in place. At least the threat they posed to the US is clearly understood.

Now a year later after President Clinton signing the Act and launching Desert Fox, he came under critisism for not doing any more to uphold the Act and force compliance in Iraq.

Senator Joe Lieberman wrote to President Clinton August 11th 1999 the following "There is considerable evidence that Iraq continues to seek and develop weapons of mass destruction. The whole point of Operation Desert Fox was that we could not afford to wait until Saddam reconstituted his WMD capabilities." He wrote this in concern that the President had done little to enforce the Act. And done little about the continued threat. As it was precieved long before.

Now... it should be no suprise to anyone that the threat continued under the following Administration. It was policy and it was in fact Law. And nothing had changed from that point in 1998. Except for 9/11. And in fact had worsened as far as compliance with UN inspection. And more time had passed.

Those are the facts and all that is FOI stuff. So you can research it yourself if you like. Its all public record.

Now the idea of escalation after 9/11 was the growing theory that you can target regimes where global terrorism might find safe harbor or even sympathetic and monetary support. You cannot really target shadowy groups but you can deny them safe harbor and cut off thier life line. So right or wrong these regimes that are international stability threats come under even more scrutiny. And as you see already had anyway. It should be noted that Lybia has rolled over since this all came about. An admitted Terrorist supporting regime. I mean not only have they admitted it but they have payed restitution and expelled the particular terrorists. No argument now that they had harbored them. Its a fact. And they recently complied with UN weapons inspections. So the argument that you can indeed negatively affect Terrrorist groups by targeting regimes that might harbor or support them in some way is actually showing that it is the case. Wether we like it or not. Or protest its not so or not. There is some evidence it indeed is working. And pleanty of historical evidence that the path we chose preceeds current administration and follows past administrations conclusions. Not some whim of current administration. Wise men that know all the facts often come to the same conclusion. And in this case it appears so.

Just something to put it all in perspective and to put some facts out on the table.

Bush just had the balls to do it.

If you want more details speak to Cphilip.

Seemingly the overwhelming majority of people who critisize Bush are the underinformed... or people with too much time... or conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately we have wayyyy to many of these two types in this country.

If you want to critisize have the hard facts to back it up.... otherwise your just basing your opinion SUBJECTIVELY not OBJECTIVELY.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Butterfingers

Just something to put it all in perspective and to put some facts out on the table.

Bush just had the balls to do it.

this is all very true (obviously), but the fact of the matter is that bush did some not-so-presidentially-sound things to get us into iraq.

first and foremost, he used the saddam-osama reason to try to convince the public he was in the right. this when osama was recorded saying that he'd love to take out saddam (he was declared a socialist infidel who leads an apostate regime). they HATE eachother, there ain't no link there.

"saddam has WMDs" where?????????????

"saddam bought weapons grade uranium from niger" -- this was the *false* report the FBI gave the president. the FBI even admitted to being pressured by the white house to produce evidence for going into iraq, and they came up with this. they urged the white house to allow time to verify the source, but the white house used it immediately. with time, the FBI discovered it was not actually a reliable source and the declared the document as forged.

so many people will argue that clinton was a bad president/person because he lied about having sexual relations with monica lewinsky. yet when people argue that bush is a bad president for lying about a saddam-osama link, which in turn caused thousands of iraqis to die (and hundreds of u.s. servicemen), they are pinko commies who spew crap.

let's not even mention that the bush campaigners put subliminal messaging in their advertisements prior to the 2000 election (if you forget, try remembering back to that summer...when it was revealed that they flashed the image of a rat when they were talking about the democrat opponents).

[Butterfingers]

Personally I think Clinton was a excellent president albeit with some flaws. The same thing with Bush excellent with some flaws. The two men have diffrent approaches granted.

Personally I could have cared less if Clinton Slept with Britney Spears. As long as hes running this country right I dont care. I would have probably voted for him in 2k if his term limit wasent up.

However Bush has demonstrated to me his good character and Personally I agree with his policy. He does things a little bit diffrent but hes still getting stuff done.

However wether it is true or not that bush "pushed" the white house to make hasty jugdements is questionable. The Evidence Presented to the house was more than adequate to convince the appropriate number of people to send the nation to war. The issue was pressed by MANY members of congress even BEFORE bush came into office. And I seriously doubt Bush could have made it all up.


Bush "pushing" image is basicly the media's perception of the issue when there is MUCH MUCH more to consider. The media could have stressed The suffering people in iraq, or the failure to comply to UN weapons inspections. BOTH of which were mentioned MULTITUDE of times by the administration.

But what the media decided to run on was WMD... thus we get the perception that this war was based on WMD based on the fact that CNN hammered it into our head once every 3 minutes.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Butterfingers
But what the media decided to run on was WMD... thus we get the perception that this war was based on WMD based on the fact that CNN hammered it into our head once every 3 minutes.

i'd agree with you that the media is to blame, BUT...we shouldn't forget that every major news station is owned by one of the "big 5" (the big 5 mega corporations that own basically all there is to own in this country). the corporations have direct influence over what does and what does not get aired...and we all know how much corporations are linked to politics. note: this works against both sides of the political spectrum, not just liberals.

oh and he really couldn't use the suffering people thing as a cause for war, OR the un inspections thing...the suffering people thing could easily be turned against him, and applied to many other countries. emphasizing the un inspections would backfire on him, because the un (the creators of the requirements) didn't want to go to war. so, the safest motive to go with is the WMDs route. it certainly convinced thousands if not millions that saddam was a direct threat to the USA because he had ICBMs (i've had multiple people tell me that, which scared me every time). and if the WMD thing didn't work, the 9-11 cause is obviously going to be reliable; who can argue with tragedy? i also had many people tell me they believed saddam had a hand in the 9-11 attacks, which is probably even scarier.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


i'd agree with you that the media is to blame, BUT...we shouldn't forget that every major news station is owned by one of the "big 5" (the big 5 mega corporations that own basically all there is to own in this country). the corporations have direct influence over what does and what does not get aired...and we all know how much corporations are linked to politics. note: this works against both sides of the political spectrum, not just liberals.

Uhm you are wrong. The networks are owned by large corporations, but most of the stations are affiliates and independently owned. Thus have their own editorial content, kind of like newspapers.