![]() |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
| Legacy Archived Main Board Business chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here. |

![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show
Want to see your own Advertising Here!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois
Posts: 5,366
|
Just to prove that I do know a little about how the government works, the data provided to all members of Congress in closed session(s), and provided in more detail to the Select Committee, came from the CIA. The CIA has sat on the Executive Branch side of the little organizational chart used to teach Middle School students about government since 1948-ish.
My point is simple, JR. Part of the reason that some people - and some members of Congress - supported the war is that the President of the United States told them it was necessary for X, Y, and Z reasons. Maybe he claimed X because of an intelligence "failure". Y and Z were still lies. Not George W. Bush, mind you - the President of the United States. Now, maybe a political sophisticate such as you isn't vulnerable to that. It got me, and I'm a pretty cynical son-of-a-bitch. There are morons who believe that the Islamic fundamentalists can be dealt with by some method other than rendering them dead - the Michael Moore types, if you will. Trying to paint Rep. John Murtha as Michael Moore is the height of ignorance. I don't find the waning support for the war on the part of liberals and Democrats any more "ironic" than I do the sudden concern with human rights and nation-building on the part of conservatives and Republicans that developed as soon as the WMD pretense became untenable. I have no doubt that some members of both parties are changing sides for political expediency. That is obviously easier for Democrats. I don't think that's the only reason they are doing so. Again, maybe that's because I'm not the political sophisticate that you are, but I think some people are changing sides because the facts and the situation on the ground in Iraq warrants it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the fact that he lied is of far less importance to me than the fact that he put American military personnel in harm's way without using enough of them in a way designed to secure victory. I think that Bush wants to keep the discussion on who supported what when, because if and when the nation has a serious dialog about how he conducted the war itself, he and the Republican Party will suffer a setback that will make the post-Watergate period seem like a victory.
__________________
SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ... |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Members
The global leader in pay-per-view AEBN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: in my chair
Posts: 3,320
|
PD i agree with you. I will just sum up my own feelings by saying that I am a bit disgusted by the mantra being chanted by all... "bush lied" and the similar remarks. The people making those remarks had an opinion without Bush. Liberals were not sitting on the edge of their seat, biting their nails waiting to hear what Bush said before the fact so they could have an opinion. Now, everyone trys to act as though they were. 1/2 the idiots in this country still think Iraq is linked to 9/11... which is more the point i am trying to make.
Again, i agree with most of what you are saying and we are saying a lot of the same things. I am not trying to paint any black and white pictures here or oversimplify complexities of the events leading up to the war.
__________________
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|