this is a typical GFY conversation in my opinion.

people were either conned or tricked.
or people are too stupid to "get it".

it has to be one of those two things because the only other choice is that people understood exactly what was happening, what needed to be done and supported it fully and overwhelmingly.

HAHA JR youd and Timon need your own opinion journal....

I love reading ya'lls posts!

HAHAHA JR, you crack me up :-))

Anyway they can't win, once the WMD are found I am sure all the tree huggers will be shouting they are planted because they failed to find any.

I was gonna but nobody is going to believe me when I claim "I didn't inhale" ;-))

This is what cracks me up about politics....
if Clinton had done the same thing, the repubs would be bitching too...

really, I can safely interchange most people from both sides....

I love the treehugger remarks...
yup, I'm a treehugger, I don't want to allow a cehmical plant to dump toxic waste into my family's drinking water.....what should I care about the rainforest, I mean, it's not happening in MY backyard right?

So, for you treehaters, how about I come by and dump the used oil from my car and hey, maybe we can ship out all of the nuclear waste the Bush administration wants to stick in the mountains of Nevada and just dump it in your front yard....I mean, what's a little environmental "inconvenience" amongst such open minded people right?

;-)))

This is true. It's a funny game. I myself was bored with bitching about the politicians so now I just bitch about the people bitching about the politicians ;-)

Try a support group. I think it's called "The Lorax".





Last edited by Colin at Jun 1 2003, 04:47 AM

You're such a little bitch :-)

agreed! thats politics... and i personally dont believe that either side is more right or wrong than the other because they cannot exist without each other.

BUT the side pointing fingers also has the burden of backing up their comments and remarks and supporting them with stronger arguments.

Bush may be a turd, but i think that its a losing argument to try to say he "lied" to decieve the American public into backing a war against Iraq.

Personally, i find it to be a very offensive suggestion since it implies that the majority of the American public are just stupid and were tricked into believing that a guy who supported terrorists, attacked two neighbors, used chemical and biological weapons, refused to disarm, refused to cooperate with the UN for 12 years, committed genocide on many levels, murdered 100's of thousands of his own people is actually a threat.

I am sorry, but i am not one of those who feels raped.

certainly not a big stretch of the imagination. i am still trying to understand where the deception or "lie" is.

the track record is long and clear. the chronology of events speaks for itself. Saddams behavior and history speaks for itself. genocide speaks for itself. gassing 10's of 1000's of people speaks for itself. shooting into crowds with machine guns from helicopters and fighter jets speaks for itself. firing chemical warheads at Iran speaks for itself. 39 missiles fired at Isreal speaks for itself.

the total amount of weapons and weapons programs that are not accounted for is staggering. his use of those weapons is fact. iraqs refusal to answer these questions or account for them to the UN and was demanded of them for 12 years is not in question. Iraqs refusal to cooperate with the UN is not in question. Iraqs lies, deception and games for 12 years is not in question.

so where is the "deception"

anyone that feels decieved.. is correct. they are decieved. 100% deceived. they have lied to themselves.

Did Powell go to the UN and "overstate the threat"? who knows? its purely subjective. RawAlex thought it would be a war that would be the "bloodiest war in 50 years" as he said. Others thought it would last a couple weeks. Unfortuneately you dont have clear answers until after the fact. Was Osama an immenent threat to the safety and security of the US? depends on when you ask.... 9/10 or 9/11. How do you properly assign a value to a threat based on purely hypothetical possibilities and possible scenarios? you cant. all you can do is put a bunch of people in a room that are charged with providing for our protection and security and have them make a decision. It was not "Bushs" decision ya know. It was the decision of his entire cabinet, of The Senate, Of Congress... of Democrats and Republicans.

You're such a little bitch :-)[/b][/quote]
I come from a long line of bitches.

Obviously, I'm just a tree-hugging whining cry-baby pussy. Not exactly sure how "tree-hugger" has a fucking thing to do with this conversation, but that's probably a result of the same public school education that causes me to regard what some folks regard as "REAL POLITIK" as a reactionary return to 19th century foreign policy. If I were to keep it up I'm sure I would be reminded that I'm an la-la liberal America-hater since I find the arguement about the American people not being gullible just a little suspect - about 40% of the American people believed the hijackers were Iraqi just a few weeks before the war began.

Oh yeah, and JR ... "how can the President of the United States be at the same time so stupid that he cannot properly construct a simple sentence and so brilliant that he pulled off the biggest con in the history of the planet which included tricking 200,000,000 US citizens and hundreds of millions of others worldwide." Thank you for pointing that out. See. here I was thinking he might have had a little help with it. My silly ass was actually stupid enough to think it's been done before, by a REAL Texan, no less. This dumb tree-hugger put WAY too much emphasis on the assets and the power of the office of PoUS, and forgot that it's all up to little old GW all by his lonesome.

That's the perfect example of how most people think. It's a-ok to do somewhere else but KEEP IT OUT OF MY BACKYARD!! Same way with the people who want to press religion on others. It's a-ok to have government involved in religion as long as it's MY RELIGION!

so what you are trying to say is that the American people as a whole were misled and misinformed by George Bush and his crew?

care to get specific?

how did people go from shock, dismay and dissapointment because Bush Sr not finishing Saddam off during Gulf War 1, to being naive, ignorant and victemized by George Bush jr?

at which point did this "dumbing down" occur?

the argument that Bush Jr and crew misled the public is VERY weak considering the evidence, 9/11 and the chronology of Saddam before and after his invasion of Kuwait and the following 12 years of complete defiance of the UN.

it will be a nice trick if you can successfully make the argument that Bush & Co. misled the public to get a war without calling 260,000,000 Americans idiots.

can you make that argument? or is this just more non-specific, partisan whining about the incredible success of one of the worlds worst politicians?



Last edited by JR at Jun 1 2003, 10:51 AM

so what you are trying to say is that the American people as a whole were misled and misinformed by George Bush and his crew?

care to get specific?

how did people go from shock, dismay and dissapointment because Bush Sr not finishing Saddam off during Gulf War 1, to being naive, ignorant and victemized by George Bush jr?

at which point did this "dumbing down" occur?

the argument that Bush Jr and crew misled the public is VERY weak considering the evidence, 9/11 and the chronology of Saddam before and after his invasion of Kuwait and the following 12 years of complete defiance of the UN.

it will be a nice trick if you can successfully make the argument that Bush & Co. misled the public to get a war without calling 260,000,000 Americans idiots.

can you make that argument? or is this just more non-specific, partisan whining about the incredible success of one of the worlds worst politicians?[/b][/quote]
Do you remember the post I made way back when in the Raw Alex thread where I provided a link that said a comfotable majority of americans surveyed thught anywehere from some to all of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqis? I find it amusing for you to think that a public THAT misinformed can understand much of anything beyond the sound bites they see on occasion in a news blurb. This, and other admins in the past, realize that people don't pay attention so we get "sound bite mania" where the american public sees Iraq and 9-11 mentioned in the same blurb and conclude that they had a bunch of hijackers on the planes for 9-11.

Lying to theAmerican people is one thing... and many politicians have gotten away with it before.....

Lying to the world is another thing, but the Pres doesn't really have to report to the world...

But if Congress was lied to, and our representatives based their votes on the lies... Then that is where the shit will hit the fan... At best intefering with GW's ability to get his ideas out there as legislation and at worst leading to impeachment.....

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p..._2-6-2003_pg3_8

"On Friday the ranking Democrat on the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee warned that President Bush’s contention that America went to war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to rid the country of hidden biological and chemical weapons “could be the greatest intelligence hoax” of all time. And it’s not only Democrats that are saying this. So are Intelligence Committee members from Bush’s own Republican Party"



Last edited by sarettah at Jun 1 2003, 05:59 PM

stuffs in Syria

http://dubplates.dogsonacid.com/track.php?id=1115

lets roll :o)

I apologize for calling you a tree a hugger, I didn't mean to offend you.

What I should have said was "terrorist hugger". ;-))

I am still not following you.

you are suggesting that there was in fact a large conspiracy theory in the Bush Administration to remove Saddam from power under the pretext of a threat from Saddams regime... but that threat was either fabricated or overstated and the real intent all along was to simply remove Saddam?

how can that be?

1) Bush said immediately after being elected that his administrations policy towards Iraq was regime change.

2) Saddam Hussein was/is a threat to his neighbors and to his own people and was well known to have large stockpiles of various chemical and biological weapons that were unnacounted for.. and a history of both using them and hiding their existence.

i think that the suggestion that there is some big conspiracy to trick people is weak. you are still quoting sources that LOVE the words "would", "but", "could", "if", "possibly"

to prove there is a conspiracy and lie.. you have to prove a lot of things. you have to prove among other things that;

1) Saddam Hussein was known not to be a threat

2) That Saddam Hussein had been cooperating and had nothing to hide.

3) That Iraq had fully dissarmed - since inspectors repeatedly stating that Iraq was not cooperating

4) that Bush and his administration had no reason to believe that Iraq was a threat.

-you should have some strong arguments here - from what i understand there is no proof of paying Palestinian suicide bomber families 25K... he only promised he would... maybe you can work it from that angle.

5) that Bush and Co. did not believe as a matter of policy (post 9/11) that Iraq was a threat to the US but tried to fabricate the case the Iraq was a threat to the US.

and please dont forget while making these arguments that a presentation was made to the UN Security Council about the threat that Iraq presents afterwhich Resolution 1441 was voted on and won by a vote of 15 to 0 and all members agreed that HE WAS A DEFINATE THREAT and IT WAS HIS LAST CHANCE TO COMPLY "FULLY, COMPLETELY, AND UNCONDITIONALLY"

So you are not really saying that Bush lied to Congress. You are saying that dozens of members of Bushs administration lied to Congress, to the UN and to the world. You are saying that Britain, Spain and others did the same. You are saying that the 15 members of the UN Security Council were all either tricked by the Evil Dubya OR, they are in on it too. The conspiracy is pretty massive for no one being able to prove it exists right? so many liars and so many lies....

What you are saying or suggesting that Bush lied. i dont object to that at all. Maybe he did... prove it. Not with conspiracy theories.. but with facts. Not with partisan mud slinging, suggestions and vague accusations... but with facts.

What i object to is to you calling me an idiot by telling me that i was lied to in order to get my support for removing Saddam Hussein. I know what Iraq was. I know what Saddam was. I know the history of Saddam, of the UN, of 12 years of failed sanctions and failed attempts to dissarm him. I know the UN is a failure in effectively dealing with these things. I know what terrorism is. I know what can happen when 20 motivated people with box cutters can do with 4 commercial jets... so its pretty horrifying to think about 1000's armed with a few kilos of small pox or VX gas. Had the UN put their seal of approval on Iraqs dissarmorment, i would have not have cared very much. But when after 12 years, they are still frustrated by their failures due to the defiance of the Iraqi regime... i thank God that someone had the balls to take action.




Last edited by JR at Jun 1 2003, 11:26 PM

Yeah JR, you tell that terrorist hugger!!

"you are suggesting that there was in fact a large conspiracy theory in the Bush Administration to remove Saddam from power under the pretext of a threat from Saddams regime?"

I am not suggesting any such thing.

"So you are not really saying that Bush lied to Congress. You are saying that dozens of members of Bushs administration lied to Congress, to the UN and to the world. You are saying that Britain, Spain and others did the same. You are saying that the 15 members of the UN Security Council were all either tricked by the Evil Dubya OR, they are in on it. The conspiracy is pretty massive for no one being able to prove it exists right? so many liars and so many lies... and no proof? "

I never said Bush lied to Congress. You conveniently ignore the "if" in the statement "But IF Congress was lied to"

"What you are saying or suggesting that Bush lied. i dont object to that at all. Maybe he did... prove it. Not with conspiracy theories.. but with facts. Not with partisan mud slinging, suggestions and vague accusations... but with facts."

I have said no such thing. period.

"What i object to is to you calling me an idiot by telling me that i was lied to in order to get my support for removing Saddam Hussein. I know what Iraq was. I know what Saddam was. I know the history of Saddam, of the UN, of 12 years of failed sanctions and failed attempts to dissarm him. I know the UN is a failure in effectively dealing with these things."

Where have I stated you are an idiot. I didn't even say you got lied to...lol...All I did was post a reference to a couple of articles...

:yowsa:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...telligence_dc_2

U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
Fri May 30, 7:18 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq (news - web sites).

A key target is a four-person Pentagon (news - web sites) team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to banned weapons or terrorist groups.

This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.


The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA (news - web sites) had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.


Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."
-------------------------------------------------

Click link for full article. This may or may not be true but REGARDLESS of your position on the issue you should care if it is.

lol Bush never fooled anyone with his permawar plan except conservatives, or did you miss the street protests and all the Bush-bashing posts on the boards?

If the Dems grow some balls, he'll end up impeached.

lol Bush never fooled anyone with his permawar plan except conservatives, or did you miss the street protests and all the Bush-bashing posts on the boards?

If the Dems grow some balls, he'll end up impeached.[/b][/quote]
protestors, along with all other sheeps,
had no idea WHAT they were protesting....and their protests ain't worth 2 clicks on a good conversion day...

as for Democrats and their balls...
they NEVER had them and NEVER will..
grow up, Bernie

Hey Dig - you forgot that those people out on the streets don't meet the definition of rite-thinkin-merikin 'round these parts.

protestors, along with all other sheeps,
had no idea WHAT they were protesting....and their protests ain't worth 2 clicks on a good conversion day...

as for Democrats and their balls...
they NEVER had them and NEVER will..
grow up, Bernie[/b][/quote]
who's the sheep Serge, the people out on the street actively protesting an unelected president trying to take away their individual right to protest, to representation when they're arrested, and their right to privacy - or the people who talk about how small-government states rights they are while they cheer for a despot centralizing power in the executive branch like he's a movie star?

Is that all it takes to get the Republican vote? Wear a cowboy hat and talk about how you love America and Jesus?

Bernie,
why do you wanna piss?

Business is slow?

Our is booming, no piss4u
;-)))

Bernie,
your political views are well known,
you are led by bigger fools than you are,
I suggest you seek sympathy from PornDoggy,
doies he know the URL of your board?
you can post it here, I don't mind
;-)))

the only thing that takes the fun out of the political discussion is that nobody's listening but ourselves, they don't make us any money :/

if you love your country, vote Democrat :salute:

the only thing that takes the fun out of the political discussion is that nobody's listening but ourselves, they don't make us any money :/

if you love your country, vote Democrat :salute:[/b][/quote]
sure,
and you'll get a child credit....you'll be rich!

sure,
and you'll get a child credit....you'll be rich![/b][/quote]
that was mean <_<

I thought you conservatives were supposed to be 'compassionate' these days :lol:

dig, we, the conservatives, care about the family..OUR family
;-)))

lol Bush never fooled anyone with his permawar plan except conservatives, or did you miss the street protests and all the Bush-bashing posts on the boards?

If the Dems grow some balls, he'll end up impeached.[/b][/quote]
dig, i typed out about a thousand words on this subject yesterday, but didn't post it, because its wasted here ... you have to come back and defend yourself regularly from your words being twisted into having entirely different meaning by folks who are determined to prove they are right in an argument that has no right and wrong.

you are not entitled to an opinion here unless its 'bush is god, america is king and the entire world should be like america'.

its funny how you made a VERY valid point, and the first response was a personal insult ...

.... the check is in the mail

.... Tornoe voted for George McGovern (fuck ... Torone voted for Truman, not Dewey or Thurman) :D

.... Vick's hero was not a crook

.... Ollie and John acted on their own

.... Like your favorite President, I didn't inhale

.... Since the drapes were installed no there are no giant boobs in John Ashcroft's Justice Department

cj,
since when did you get the case of "penis envy"?
;-)))

Bush is a turd, Amsterdam is king and the entire world should be like Amsterdam!

You see, I'm fully entitled to that opinion ;-)

cj,
since when did you get the case of "penis envy"?
;-)))[/b][/quote]
since she saw my handsome face in the Museum

http://sergesmuseum.com/image.php?image=238

I thought you got pissed off and took that down lol

dig, the tits ARE small but...what's the heck,
;-))))

and once again,
even the Weapons of Mass Destruction can be summed up by tits and ass...

Only on Oprano!
;-)))