Saddam caught by Bush, wonder how the Dems will twist this one?

[jsarno]

Dems here made comments that we weren't even seeking after Hussien. Kind of stuffs a sock in that one huh?
How about Lieberman blasting Dean saying that if he ran the country, Hussien would still be at large?

THANK YOU GW FOR NOT QUITTING LIKE ALL THE DEMS WANTED YOU TO DO!!!

(just curious...so how are you dems going to twist this one?)

[RedskinsDave]

To quote Mr. Leiberman again, "this is a day where we should forget about being Democrats or Republicans and celebrate a victory".

[NCskinsfanatic]

Thanks Mr.Lieberman.That's awful convienient to say if you a Bush basher,How about something with a little more substance.

[Keino]

OK. What about Bin Laden? Have we all forgotten about him while we are patting ourselves and our Presidsent on the Back? Please, are you Conservatives going to call this a victory in the war on terror? I want the Guy responisble for AMERICAN DEATHS. I want the guy who knocked my Towers Down and Attacked MY Country on MY SOIL.

I will not be diverted. No WMD's and No Link to Terrorists responsible for 9/11. We rid the world of a villain. That is cause for celebration, but lets not lose focus. The real threat is still out there in Afghanistan somewhere, a place we have ignored since our obsession with Iraq.

This will not make us forget the lies that you told Mr. Bush to get us here.

[NamVet4]

The only thing I'm 100% positive is that all political persuasions will put a twist on this event.
The greater concern is what will be the terrorists reaction ?

[BigCountry]

You people are talking like Bush went in there himself and caught him. Thank God for President Bush? Not really... At least they've pulled out one positive after bombing Bagdad to the ground and killing a bunch of Iraqies. Having that in common, they should actually get along better.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
You people are talking like Bush went in there himself and caught him.

And you people blamed HIM for the fact that we were there in the first place. You also blamed HIM for lies. (even though several countries with all their intellegence agreed with each other.) So if Bush is even one Iota to blame for anything, then he's 100% responsible for catching Hussien.

But it was infact BUSH that didn't want to quit despite a huge following of people pushing him to. (a lot of people here even). But BUSH MADE THE DECISION not to quit until Hussien was caught. So yes, he is just as much to thank as any person that actually put their hands on Hussien. Wihtout Bushs personal approval, this would not have been possible.

[RedskinsDave]

All of you are pathetic, both sides.

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by Keino
OK. What about Bin Laden? Have we all forgotten about him while we are patting ourselves and our Presidsent on the Back? Please, are you Conservatives going to call this a victory in the war on terror? I want the Guy responisble for AMERICAN DEATHS. I want the guy who knocked my Towers Down and Attacked MY Country on MY SOIL.

I will not be diverted. No WMD's and No Link to Terrorists responsible for 9/11. We rid the world of a villain. That is cause for celebration, but lets not lose focus. The real threat is still out there in Afghanistan somewhere, a place we have ignored since our obsession with Iraq.

This will not make us forget the lies that you told Mr. Bush to get us here.

What makes you think they stoped looking for Bin Ladin? Who said that? By the way have you heard from Bin Laden since Tora Bora in Dec. 2001? You know since he starting being called missing in action. Is it your thought that we can't hunt terrerist like Bin Ladin because it takes divisions with tanks to look for scattered groups of thugs?

Can you let use know what lies Bush told to get use here? How is qouting UN reports of WMB stockpiles Bush lieing? He did list the UN list as they had it, so maybe the UN lied and Bush got tricked. Or maybe you just hate Bush and say it as it is twisted.

If Bush lied then so did the UN, the intel of many Goverments and so on. The one fact that caused all this was Saddam not showing the proof of where these weapons where or there destruction. He agreed in a surrender of war to do that. After 10 years of games he was given one last chance to comply quick fast and in a hurry, he didn't.

At the end maybe it will be you just lieing to yourself.

Answer this, if there where know weapons
Why did Saddam fight for solong to avoid inspection, and not do everything to prove there wasn't to avoid war.

Why did the UN have list of the stockpiles

Why did the countries opposed even say he had them.

Why do you think so many Dems voted for this measure.

Why did Clinton say basicly the samething in 98.

When 3 people in a room can't keep a secret, what makes you think 60 countries can if this was all false.

Why would around 60 countries support this if Bush was just a lieing madman out for war.

Good lord man, this is not hard to figure out, you don't like war? Who does? But it does happen when you have people like Saddam around, history shows that.

Supporting a different option is one thing, but saying Bush is makeing this all up to start a war is stupid. If that is true then most elected officials must be lieing also, because alot voted for it.

[Spence]

This thread is beneath contempt.

[RedskinsDave]

Agreed.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
What makes you think they stoped looking for Bin Ladin? Who said that? By the way have you heard from Bin Laden since Tora Bora in Dec. 2001? You know since he starting being called missing in action. Is it your thought that we can't hunt terrerist like Bin Ladin because it takes divisions with tanks to look for scattered groups of thugs?

Can you let use know what lies Bush told to get use here? How is qouting UN reports of WMB stockpiles Bush lieing? He did list the UN list as they had it, so maybe the UN lied and Bush got tricked. Or maybe you just hate Bush and say it as it is twisted.

If Bush lied then so did the UN, the intel of many Goverments and so on. The one fact that caused all this was Saddam not showing the proof of where these weapons where or there destruction. He agreed in a surrender of war to do that. After 10 years of games he was given one last chance to comply quick fast and in a hurry, he didn't.

At the end maybe it will be you just lieing to yourself.

Answer this, if there where know weapons
Why did Saddam fight for solong to avoid inspection, and not do everything to prove there wasn't to avoid war.

Why did the UN have list of the stockpiles

Why did the countries opposed even say he had them.

Why do you think so many Dems voted for this measure.

Why did Clinton say basicly the samething in 98.

When 3 people in a room can't keep a secret, what makes you think 60 countries can if this was all false.

Why would around 60 countries support this if Bush was just a lieing madman out for war.

Good lord man, this is not hard to figure out, you don't like war? Who does? But it does happen when you have people like Saddam around, history shows that.

Supporting a different option is one thing, but saying Bush is makeing this all up to start a war is stupid. If that is true then most elected officials must be lieing also, because alot voted for it.

Bravo!

Unfortunately, you are wasting your breathe (or finger strength haha). The truth listed above is falling on deaf ears as you can see. Even Spence ignored it saying it's beneath contempt. Probably cause the truth hurts and it's easier to stay in thier own little worlds than admit that thier "leaders" are leading them astray. It will not be the last time you hear "they lied". Why? Cause they don't want to admit it they were wrong.

[dukeuch]

I think it is safe to say that as voiced by both Dean and CLark (at least in the statements I saw and heard) everyone is glad we caught Hussein, but they (and I) still do not think we should have been there in the first place. I am glad we caught the guy, but still think that we should have waited until other measures, were given time and more international support had been garnered.

[dukeuch]

Jsarno:

Well, the other thread we were going at it in was closed, so I just wanted to add tow more things:

1) Thanks for the definition of friendly. Since you are so thorough, I am sure you took the time to look up the synonym of friendly in Rogets, one of which is indeed intimate. So my silly Franken/Coulter example was of course sarcastic, but shows how within the true meanings of word can lead to wholly different takes on a statement.

2) I really do not care if you think I am an idiot or whatever. Various people have triedd to explain simple concepts such as annual deficit vs. national debt, and you still don't get it. Instead you fall back and say "well, it does not matter anyway". From a guy who does not understand the difference between a million, billion and trillion, insults are a compliment.

[jsarno]

this is going to PM, cause what I have to say you can not be said here.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
this is going to PM, cause what I have to say you can not be said here.

No problem, I've PM'd back.

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Jsarno:

Well, the other thread we were going at it in was closed, so I just wanted to add tow more things:

1) Thanks for the definition of friendly. Since you are so thorough, I am sure you took the time to look up the synonym of friendly in Rogets, one of which is indeed intimate. So my silly Franken/Coulter example was of course sarcastic, but shows how within the true meanings of word can lead to wholly different takes on a statement.

2) I really do not care if you think I am an idiot or whatever. Various people have triedd to explain simple concepts such as annual deficit vs. national debt, and you still don't get it. Instead you fall back and say "well, it does not matter anyway". From a guy who does not understand the difference between a million, billion and trillion, insults are a compliment.

I would be more than happy to go into the subject of debt. Who's debt would you like to talk about? I'm game, let's debate debt for all. Toss something out there , maybe we can both learn a thing or to.

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by Spence
This thread is beneath contempt.

If you choose not to respond then fine, but I asked fair things. If my post is beneath contempt to you, then you are the one in contempt. Why because you skirt the facts.

Spence you are a trip. I have stopped by from time to time to debate alittle and see what is going on, and you are the one basic guy I look to read a paste from and just a anti Bush whatever. Do you think in a forum like this that you show honest debate in your beliefs? If so then why so much non opionion from you?

Can I ask you this? Do you beleave in what your country stands for? Not the I don't like this or that stuff, but the basic idea of freedom and such. If you do beleave in the basic things we all have, then can I ask you if the country is better with two healthy parties or just one.

If your so scared of Bush that you and your base can only resort to making this 2003 problem into another Vietnam, then what does that say for you all.

Maybe it is time the good people in the Dem party go back to having fresh Idea's to help this country in 2003. Don't ask me, but hoping our nation falls on its face in a time of war , is the only way you guys think you can unseat Bush, then you are the one in contempt.

IMO

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
Maybe it is time the good people in the Dem party go back to having fresh Idea's to help this country in 2003. Don't ask me, but hoping our nation falls on its face in a time of war , is the only way you guys think you can unseat Bush, then you are the one in contempt.

IMO

Please understand, I do not think that most folks who opposed going to Iraq want to see "our nation fall on its face in a time of war..." I know I don't. I don't think we should have attacked until we had exhausted all measures and garnered more international support. I am, however, glad that we have captured Hussein, and while I think it is unfortunate we are in the position we are, hope we succeed in our efforts.

It is so disengenious to try to label dissent as tantamount to unpatriotic. See, (and I'm paraphrasing someone here) I believe that the conservative ditto-heads love our country like a four year old loves her mommy, anyone who says anything critical about her is bad. Myself, and I think most of my liberal breatheren, love our country like an adult, we hope for it's health and prosperity, hope it will do the right thing, but recognize when it does make a mistake and hope it will act honestly and admit and reconcile when we do the wrong thing.

What is so wrong with that?

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Please understand, I do not think that most folks who opposed going to Iraq want to see "our nation fall on its face in a time of war..." I know I don't. I don't think we should have attacked until we had exhausted all measures and garnered more international support. I am, however, glad that we have captured Hussein, and while I think it is unfortunate we are in the position we are, hope we succeed in our efforts.

It is so disengenious to try to label dissent as tantamount to unpatriotic. See, (and I'm paraphrasing someone here) I believe that the conservative ditto-heads love our country like a four year old loves her mommy, anyone who says anything critical about her is bad. Myself, and I think most of my liberal breatheren, love our country like an adult, we hope for it's health and prosperity, hope it will do the right thing, but recognize when it does make a mistake and hope it will act honestly and admit and reconcile when we do the wrong thing.

What is so wrong with that?

Thank you. Very well said.

Let's see how this gets twisted and mangled.

[RedskinsDave]

"Myself, and I think most of my liberal breatheren, love our country like an adult, we hope for it's health and prosperity, hope it will do the right thing, but recognize when it does make a mistake and hope it will act honestly and admit and reconcile when we do the wrong thing."

I think it's disingenuous to imply that conservatives don't or that we're not adults. Don't label an entire group and certainly don't defend one either.

[rskinsfan10]

I don't think that comment was menat towards all conservatives. Only those that act as though liberals are beneath them. At least that's my interpretation.

[Keino]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
"Myself, and I think most of my liberal breatheren, love our country like an adult, we hope for it's health and prosperity, hope it will do the right thing, but recognize when it does make a mistake and hope it will act honestly and admit and reconcile when we do the wrong thing."

I think it's disingenuous to imply that conservatives don't or that we're not adults. Don't label an entire group and certainly don't defend one either.

It was an analogy. I don't think he is saying that Conservatives are child-like while liberals are adult-like. He is speaking more about how support for this action in Iraq became a litmus test for ones Patriotism. Those who spoke out openly about the action were deemed unpatriotic by many a conservative. If you look at his comments in the context of a reply to Daplumkin who has basically charachterized those of us leftward leaning folks as "Hoping for the country to fail" unfailry, I don't think you could have come away with that interpretation at all.

[DC_Cowboys]

Fun thread and I am bore so I take a tab at it.

By the way have you heard from Bin Laden since Tora Bora in Dec. 2001?

Yeap, in case you didn't know. We are under orange alert.

Why did Saddam fight for solong to avoid inspection, and not do everything to prove there wasn't to avoid war.

U.S wouldn't allow any body access to the whitehouse. I don't think Russia would allow forgein nation access to the Kremlin, etc.. It's a sovergein issue.

Why did the UN have list of the stockpiles

Old stuff

Why did the countries opposed even say he had them.

They are wrong too.

Why do you think so many Dems voted for this measure.

They are spineless.

Why did Clinton say basicly the samething in 98.

Old intelligence ?

When 3 people in a room can't keep a secret, what makes you think 60 countries can if this was all false.

Umm. I am lost.

Why would around 60 countries support this if Bush was just a lieing madman out for war.

You can always buy support. How much are we paying for those support ? If you look at the number of countries that support us versus those that oppose, you will get a clearer picture.

Supporting a different option is one thing, but saying Bush is makeing this all up to start a war is stupid. If that is true then most elected officials must be lieing also, because alot voted for it.

OK, Bush didn't make it up. He only likes to see evidences that support what he wants to do no matter how unreliable they are. Kinda turning a blind eye to different opinions.

Now let me ask you these:

1. Where are WMD ?
2. Did Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 ?
3. Why is Iraq war called War on Terror ?

[Spence]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
Now let me ask you these:

1. Where are WMD ?
2. Did Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 ?
3. Why is Iraq war called War on Terror ? The new report out from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace backs up recent reports in The Washington Post [which supported the Iraq War] and The New York Times [which opposed it] that Iraqi WMD were destroyed under U.N. auspices in 1991. The CEIP report shows pretty conclusively that the Bush admin at least suspected Iraq posed no WMD threat to the world, but played upon that issue to justify the war.

Anyone who wants to can have a look at the report at www.ceip.org/. It's a little over 100 pages long. It makes fascinating reading.