Byrd: 'False Premises' Prompted Iraq War

[Terri]

Byrd: 'False Premises' Prompted Iraq War

Sen. Byrd Accuses Bush Adminstration of Using 'False Premises' to Lure U.S. Into Iraq War

ABC News
May 22, 2003

Sen. Robert Byrd accused the Bush administration of using "false premises" to get Americans to accept what he said was an illegal and unprovoked attack on Saddam Hussein's government.

His remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday made for some of the toughest criticism of the Iraq war from Congress.

Referring to turmoil in postwar Iraq, Byrd, D-W.Va., said: "If the situation in Iraq is the result of liberation, we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years."

The White House dismissed his comments.

"It was widely known before the conflict began that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, as was determined by the United Nations," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said. "In fact, we have already found at least two mobile labs" suspected of being capable of producing biological weapons, she said.

Full Story (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030521_2062.html )

He's the best the Dems have to offer. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif

[Constitutional American]

Obviously you don't care for the messenger but a case can be made that:
"the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises,"

As much as everyone would like to shift the focus now, the "premise" for war with Iraq WAS weapons of mass-destruction. That's what U.N. resolution 1441 was about. That's what the U.N. inspections were about. That's what the administration assured us they had "proof" of that they couldn't show us for fear of jeopardizing their sources.

Do I support the War on Terrorism? Of course I do but it was "Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, who masterminded the Sept. 11th attacks" NOT Saddam Hussein.
It's great that the Iraqi's are free. Saddam was obviously an evil tyrant, the discovery of mass-graves only reinforces that fact. That was not the "premise" for the invasion of Iraq though. It was WMD. They were the justification. They were the "threat" to America.
The discovery of the "two mobile labs suspected of being capable of producing biological weapons" is strong evidence, but not WMD themselves.
I sure hope we find them. I'd hate to think they were shipped to Syria, or some other rogue nation.

[stormy]

Quote[/b] ] Do I support the War on Terrorism? Of course I do but it was "Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, who masterminded the Sept. 11th attacks" NOT Saddam Hussein.

Does anyone have PROOF that Hussein was not in on that, too? Does anyone else remember how thrilled he was that it had happened? Remember, he was a master of deceit! Also, wasn't there a plane found in IRAQ that the terrorists had practiced with?

Stormy

[iansays]

Quote[/b] ]Does anyone have PROOF that Hussein was not in on that, too?

I don't think the United States should be in the business of invading sovereign nations because we can't prove that they aren't aiding terrorists.

We can't prove that Canada and Great Briton aren't aiding terrorists. We aren't going to invade them. At least not yet.

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact, there are many people who think that during the chaos we caused in invading, terrorists groups were able to make off with weapons and information that they wouldn't have otherwise had access to. Nuclear facilities were looted while we watched oil fields.

1) We will rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. When we find them.

2) We will stop Iraq from helping terrorists. When we can prove it that it actually happened.

3) We will liberate the people of Iraq. By controlling their media and forcing them to turn in their guns. And making sure they don’t decide to form an Islamic state.

Byrd may be a whackjob, but thus far, the evidence is much more in favor of his version of the facts. If or when that changes remains to be seen.

[Constitutional American]

Quote[/b] ]Does anyone have PROOF that Hussein was not in on that, too?
Sort of putting the cart before the horse.
The burden of proof is that Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11, not the other way around. Using that logic I might as well say, "There's no PROOF that Stormy was in on it too!"

Any way here's a link if it matters:
Although there has been no proven link between Saddam Hussein and the events of Sept. 11 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/21/earlyshow/contributors/melindamurphy/main545176.shtml)

I thought we had pretty well established that the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi's NOT Iraqi's but I guess I must be remembering things wrong...

[stormy]

Stormy's too old and too poor to help fund anything like that! But, I still say that Hussein was tickled pink we were attacked, as were most of the countries over there. Iansays, you're not KKK's press agent, are you? http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[pRIMrose]

Some people just can't seem to see for forrest for the trees. What is so hard to understand? Even if WMD was the excuse to go into Iraq, so what? Saddam Hussein had twelve long years to comply with 17 UN resolutions. Neither the UN, nor the inspectors did the job they were being paid to do. We had no choice but to put the deception to a halt ~ by any means at our disposal. To wait for a "smoking gun" is about as stupid as it gets. We know that Saddam had the capability to produce WMD, he has used WMD in the past, he has killed thousands upon thousands of people (who are still being dug up) and he starved his people by stealing the "oil for food" money and spent it on military and palaces ~ and pocketed the rest. He has been tied to AlQuaeda and has paid Palestinian homicide bomber families $25k for selling their family members as cannon fodder. France and Germany were doing business with him under the table ~ or should I say, under the nose of the UN, for years. Russia was also doing unsanctioned business with Hussein. Since the bleeding hearts dragged the process out for almost six months, of course Saddam was able to stash away or get rid of his WMD . With his vast underground network, why did he need mobile bio labs? Saddam Hussein is evil incarnate and he *is* WMD all by himself. We did the absolute right thing in getting rid of the Saddam regime ~ even if we never find WMD.

As for Robert Byrd ~ he's a disgrace to the Senate. I didn't think anyone could hold a candle to Tom Daschle, but Byrd has met and surpassed the Daschle "whiney puke" award. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/barf.gif

[iansays]

Quote[/b] ]Even if *WMD was the excuse to go into Iraq, so what?

It obviously was a poor excuse, at least thus far.

Quote[/b] ]he has killed thousands upon thousands of people (who are still being dug up) and he starved his people

There are those in this very forum that seem to advocate killing Muslims. What in the world do they care if Hussien was helping them in this task? I agree that this was abhorrent, and had we been told from the beginning that we were going to Iraq to stop the killing and mass graves, I may have given my support to the actions we took. Instead, our leaders scared us into thinking that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US via WMD. This threat has yet to be validated.

Quote[/b] ] He has been tied to AlQuaeda

There is still no evidence that Hussein was tied to al Queda. If or when it appears, you can bet that our government will make sure we all know about it.

Quote[/b] ]and has paid Palestinian homicide bomber families $25k for selling their family members as cannon fodder.

We give Israel billions every year. I imagine a large chunk of it goes to buying tanks and weapons that kill Palestinian civilians along with their intended military targets. Not exactly a reward, sort of a pre-payment.

Quote[/b] ]Saddam Hussein is evil incarnate

We don't have the right to invade countries because their leaders are evil.

Quote[/b] ] Iansays, you're not KKK's press agent, are you?
As I said, I think he's a whackjob. Doesn't mean that the facts aren't on his side, at least up 'til now.

[Klaymore]

If you are looking for the WMD ian, go take a drink of the Tigris river.

[Drewman626]

Hey Guys, we should all feel special that our little board here has gotten the attention of the DNC and we now have "seminar posters" posing as Conservatives and spreading the DNC party line.

I can't believe that we're having this war debate all over again. *

The same people who wanted to give the UN Inspectors 6+ months to find WMD, which they would have never been able to find, are now the same people who are demanding that the US find the same hidden weapons immediately!

Dude, it's been 2 months since the war BEGAN. *2 MONTHS. *There have been at least half a dozen "suspicious" things found that just haven't had enough time to be investigated enough yet to be confirmed. *We have two bio labs, the nuclear facility, the chemical drums, the chemical suits, the atrophean, etc etc etc... take a chill pill and relax a little.

That being said...

The legal arguement for the war is infallable: *The 1991 Gulf War was declared by Congress and supported by the UN. *That war was never declared over. *There was a Conditional CeaseFire put in place that haulted the military action. *That CeaseFire was conditional on Saddam Hussein complying with UN Resolutions. *After 12 years and 17 resolutions, 1441 found him in "further material breach" and the conditions of the CeaseFire were there violated... at which point the President of the United States had the option of lifting the cease fire and resuming military actions.

That being said...

To say that Iraq, and thus its liberation, has nothing to do with terrorism is about as laughable and saying that Arafat doesn't support Hamas. *Take a look at the area. *It's well known that Syria and Iran are two of the biggest terrorist supporting nations in the region. *Iran now has two US controlled countries on either side of it. *Not to mention that there is a very strong undercurrent of democracy spreading through Iran. *Syria is a weakling that will now has no one to back it up. *Egypt is still a threat, but they, like the Saudi's, are slowly but surely are realizing that if they don't turn another leaf, they'll suffer the same fate as Iraq. *There are major brass in both nations that have had to make the decision between supporting terrorism or being wiped out. *

Iraq had EVERYTHING to do with terrorism. *We've shaken up the Middle East and forced some major changed there through which terrorism will be less supported.

[Terri]

Quote[/b] ]Hey Guys, we should all feel special that our little board here has gotten the attention of the DNC and we now have "seminar posters" posing as Conservatives and spreading the DNC party line.

Excellent point, Drewman. I do believe you have him pegged.

[anamericanpatriot]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif It is apparant that the "Constitutional American" needs to "open his eyes" and see the "truth." *The USA did find sufficient evidence of WMD development and presence to condemn a country like Israel of having WMDs...but since poor ole Iraq is the one in non-compliance (over 12 years of failed diplomacy had not worked) our own people are allowing themselves to be tricked into thinking "we are in breach of international law" because we attacked Iraq. *It don't seem to matter that the "UN verified that Saddam had WMDs over 12-plus years ago" nor does it matter that Saddam used tactics to delay their destruction, an overt act of non-compliance--so he could continue working on a way to conquer his Arabic neighbors. *The failed diplomacy, attributable to the liberal-minded Democrats whose thinking that "diplomacy needs more time to work," served only to "sell out the world" by allowing Saddam sufficient time to ""move his WMDs out of Iraq" and into the hands of the terrorists--most likely they store them in Syria! *Even IMPEACHED PRESIDENT CLINTON agreed with his party's thinking. *

Going to war with Iraq was justifiable and our only option, because Saddam's WMDs were, and are, a "grave threat" to the USA and the world. *To have done less would have only served to allow Saddam an opportunity to "take his Arabic neighbors" into bondage and, in turn, place the rest of the world at his mercy!

Evidence proves that Saddam was one of the terrorists' groups main support ROOTS! *Our discovery of terrorist training camps--even a plane USED to teach terrorist techniques in hi-jacking planes--proved that. *Whether he was directly, or indirectly, involved with the 9/11/01 attacks is a matter of FACT simply because he supports them. Any court of law would acknowledge that! *

So, please understand this, my "Constitutional American" friend, to say our war in Iraq is illegal is equivalent to being against the freedoms our country was founded on, and made in-writing in the U.S. Constitution! *In addition, to say the USA was wrong to free a people from such a tyrant is to agree that tyrants "round the world" have a "right" to murder and maim men, women and children...and that's disgusting!

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif Wave the US Flag because it symbolizes our Consitution to the world! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

[Constitutional American]

anamericanpatriot,
Since you would like to be the one to "open my eyes" let me open yours a little...
Quote[/b] ]to say our war in Iraq is illegal
and...
Quote[/b] ]In addition, to say the USA was wrong to free a people from such a tyrant
Now that your eyes are open, perhaps you'll actually read my post. I never said either of the things you've accussed me of.

If your refering to what Senator Byrd said,
""the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises,"
I unequivocally stand behind what I said,

"the "premise" for war with Iraq WAS weapons of mass-destruction"

NOT "working on a way to conquer his Arabic neighbors"
NOT "take his Arabic neighbors" into bondage and, in turn, place the rest of the world at his mercy"
NOT "that Saddam was one of the terrorists' groups main support ROOTS"
NOT "terrorist training camps"
NOT "a plane USED to teach terrorist techniques in hi-jacking planes"

Some of the things you mention didn't even come to light until AFTER we'd already won the war.

Here's something else from my post you would have noticed if YOU opened your eyes,

"It's great that the Iraqi's are free. Saddam was obviously an evil tyrant, the discovery of mass-graves only reinforces that fact."
and
"I sure hope we find them. I'd hate to think they were shipped to Syria, or some other rogue nation."
You better pay a little closer attention before you start calling people names like "disgusting". http://offline999.home.attb i.com/dousing.gif

iansays,
Quote[/b] ]had we been told from the beginning that we were going to Iraq to stop the killing and mass graves
As much as I know agreeing with Ian is tantamount to painting a target on myself, had the war with Iraq been presented on honest terms I'm sure we would have had much more support across this country and the world.

Alright, let me have it...
http://offline999.home.attb i.com/target.gif

[Terri]

It must be getting crowded under the senator's sheet with all the support he's getting from his left leaning buddies in this forum. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif

[Constitutional American]

Did you notice my target guy even falls left? *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

(of course, from his perspective he falls to the right...)

[anamericanpatriot]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I got your attention my "Constitutional American" friend and I based my narrative on your comments "as a whole." As for talking about Saddam's objective of domination of the whole oil-rich Arab region, any military-oriented tactician would make such a statement based on events occuring in the region since Saddam initialling attacked Kuwait. That you have not mentioned such a thing doesn't mean Saddam's intention in the region wasn't on his agenda--and his actions of non-compliance go a long way to support my premise, not yours. So, as I've already said, "Open your eyes to the truth about the region and see the whole picture." It will be liberals like you who will be responsible when the terrorists use the WMDs because your kind don't possess the courage to stand and fight when the time is right! As for opening my "eyes a little," well, we all need wake-up calls from time to time. For me, this just isn't one of those times. I do thank you for the response because it is such dialogue that makes us stronger!
http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif God Bless America in spite of the Liberals http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

[Constitutional American]

Quote[/b] ]That you have not mentioned such a thing doesn't mean Saddam's intention in the region wasn't on his agenda
That I have not mentioned such a thing is because it was not on MY agenda (though obviously on yours).
What I did mention (for the 3rd time now?) was that the American people "may have been lured into accepting" the war on Iraq "under false premises".
(I left the italics off this time figuring maybe that's why you're having such a difficult time actually reading what I've said)

Quote[/b] ]It will be liberals like you who will be responsible when the terrorists use the WMDs
For someone so down on liberals you sure do think like one.
Have you ever heard of personal responsibility?
When WMDs are used it will be the terrorists who will be responsible.
Just like guns don't kill people, murders do.
Just like tobacco companies don't give people cancer, smokers get it by choosing to smoke.
Just like McDonalds doesn't make people fat, people who choose to eat there do.
I have no idea what truly motivates terrorists to perform the atrocities they do. The only terrorist we've had in this forum claimed it was retaliation for killing Muslims.
If I was to use your flawed liberal logic that someone else is to blame, other than the actual person who perpetrates the act, then I would have to say whoever kills Muslims is responsible for the retaliation their actions bring.
(thankfully I don't have to depend on flawed logic)

So far you've called me disgusting, liberal, & told me I will be responsible for mass destruction.
I figure if the best you can muster for a rebuttal is name calling then there's not much point in trying to have a "dialogue" with you.


http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif God Bless America INCLUDING the bozos *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

[pRIMrose]

Quote[/b] ]As much as I know agreeing with Ian is tantamount to painting a target on myself, had the war with Iraq been presented on honest terms I'm sure we would have had much more support across this country and the world.

Um........ CA http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/huh2.gif Like where were you when France, Germany, Russia etal were obstructing our every attempt to gain their support and that of the UN? Only to find out that it was because of their nefarious activies and complicity with none other than, <gasp> you guessed it, Saddam. BTW ~ cute smilies ~ are they linked to your website?

ian ~ I'm not ignoring you http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin2.gif however, I think drewman covered just about everything I would have said. So, to eliminate redundancy and the waste of valuable bandwith, I'll just say "ditto" to his post. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Saber]

Quote[/b] ]I have no idea what truly motivates terrorists to perform the atrocities they do.

I guess you flunked koran 101 then?

[jwyatt63]

Regarding Sen. Byrds condemnation of the Iraq war:

Does anybody else recall hearing any anecdotal evidence on or around Sept 12 2001 that would indicate that various supremacist groups in the USA (i.e. the KKK) sympathized with the terrorists?

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

[Constitutional American]

RIM,
Quote[/b] ]where were you when France, Germany, Russia etal were obstructing our every attempt to gain their support and that of the UN
I was watching them.
This sort of ties into what I'm saying.
We were insisting that Saddam had WMD's. Powell testified that we had proof of them but that he couldn't show the proof for fear of jeapordizing his sources (a legitamate point).
So that framed the entire debate around WMD's which made it real easy for other countries to call for more inspections.
Saddmam played right into this by cooperating just enough everytime we turned the heat up.

Quote[/b] ]BTW ~ cute smilies ~ are they linked to your website?
Yeah, I've got some smilie organizer program that finds them on the internet. When I find one I like I toss it up in some webspace somewhere.
Here's some of the fun one's I'm playing with... (http://offline999.home.attb i.com/)


Saber,
Quote[/b] ]I guess you flunked koran 101 then?
I took a Comparative Religions course years ago & I'm sure we covered Islam but that was a long time ago & I don't remember any mention of homicide bombers being a legitamate form of religious expression.

[Saber]

Quote[/b] ]I don't remember any mention of homicide bombers being a legitamate form of religious expression.


No? Well maybe you remember all the death to the "infidel" passages......err... .suras? Seems they've made murder bombing of innocents their own special brand of maiming and death. Such a peaceful bunch they are.

[Drewman626]

==================== ==================== ==================== ==

Koran

2.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

3.169: And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;

3.171: They rejoice on account of favor from Allah and (His) grace, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers.

3.28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah

4.89: then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper"

4.91: therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

5.51: do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends

6.151: and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice

9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness

13.14: and the prayer of the unbelievers is only in error

33.1: O Prophet! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and do not comply with (the wishes of) the unbelievers and the hypocrites

33.48: And be not compliant to the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and leave unregarded their annoying talk, and rely on Allah

47.34: Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.

60.13: O you who believe! do not make friends with a people with whom Allah is wroth

66.9: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be hard against them; and their abode is hell; and evil is the resort.

71.26: And Nuh said: My Lord! leave not upon the land any dweller from among the unbelievers

80.42: These are they who are unbelievers, the wicked

==================== ==================== ==================== ==

The Koran (http://etext.lib.virginia.e du/koran.html)



There are many, many, many more examples but I don't have all day. How on Earth are you supposed to make a peace treaty with these people? How on earth are you supposed to be "friends" with people who's god is telling them to not be friends with you?

[pRIMrose]

Quote[/b] ]Powell testified that we had proof of them but that he couldn't show the proof for fear of jeapordizing his sources (a legitamate point).

CA ~ don't you think that there is a chance that the WMD were disposed of before we got to Baghdad? It isn't a great leap to believe that all the unaccounted for bio/chem stuff is still there "somewhere" or perhaps shipped out to neighboring countries. IMO, we couldn't afford to take the chance that they would be found by the UN inspectors. In fact, I really believe that the UN inspectors only served to buy Saddam more time to get rid of the evidence or hide it. At least now the people will benefit from all the oil, money and now 40 tons of gold they have just discovered ~ and with the dropping of the sanctions, Iraq has to be a better place. We know for a certainty, that with Saddam it would never happen and that he was a ruthless dictator with the help of many other countries who were only insterested in lining their own pockets.

[dale]

Quote[/b] (Terri @ May 21, 2003 -- 11:34 pm)]Byrd: 'False Premises' Prompted Iraq War

Sen. Byrd Accuses Bush Adminstration of Using 'False Premises' to Lure U.S. Into Iraq War

ABC News
May 22, 2003

Sen. Robert Byrd accused the Bush administration of using "false premises" to get Americans to accept what he said was an illegal and unprovoked attack on Saddam Hussein's government.

His remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday made for some of the toughest criticism of the Iraq war from Congress.

Referring to turmoil in postwar Iraq, Byrd, D-W.Va., said: "If the situation in Iraq is the result of liberation, we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years."

The White House dismissed his comments.

"It was widely known before the conflict began that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, as was determined by the United Nations," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said. "In fact, we have already found at least two mobile labs" suspected of being capable of producing biological weapons, she said.

Full Story (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030521_2062.html )

He's the best the Dems have to offer. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif
I suppose we should not be so rough on Senator Byrd just because he is a Socialist. He is actually handicapped - you could say the has a "Byrd" brain - you know how small and narrow they are! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[iansays]

Quote[/b] ]There are many, many, many more examples but I don't have all day

I am neither a Qur'anic nor a biblical scholar. I have read both of them several times. The main messages of both are open to interpretation (unless you are a literalist, which is fine, too).

I would suggest that, taken apart from the whole and out of context, passages from both books could be construed to present very different images than the ones actually intended.

I present just a few, not to argue the merits or correctness/incorrectness of them, just as a demonstration:

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name Exo. 15:3

I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy. Jer. 13:14

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Mat. 12:30

Again, I'm not trying to tear down the bible. Often, there are reasonable explanations for what seem like contradictions. Taken alone, though, and listed one by one, it seems reasonable that someone could do the same things with the Bible that are done with the Qur'an.

Let's even say the Qur'an is a book full of aggression and conquering. I wonder how many moderate Muslims take the Qur'an literally. There are ten (hundreds?) of millions of people who consider themselves Christian that do not think that every word in the bible is a literal truth. Some people do, and it's their right to do so, but just because someone doesn't, it does not make them a non-Christian. Similarly, I would suggest that many Muslims feel the same way about the Qur'an.

I cannot connect this in any way to Sen. Byrd. I think I'll shut up now that I wandered this far off topic.

[Drewman626]

Quote[/b] (iansays @ May 23, 2003 -- 6:14 pm)]I have read both of them several times.
riiiiiiight

[stormy]

Quote[/b] ]There are ten (hundreds?) of millions of people who consider themselves Christian that do not think that every word in the bible is a literal truth. Some people do, and it's their right to do so, but just because someone doesn't, it does not make them a non-Christian. Similarly, I would suggest that many Muslims feel the same way about the Qur'an.

Hmmm, the bible also says that not everyone who calls me Lord is one of my children. Glad you said that "CALLED" themselves Christians. Some people think they are born Christians. The way I was taught Christians are "born-again believers" and that's the way I believe!

But, it sounds like no matter what anyone says or what the subject is, you go back to defending the muslims and their "word". Are you muslim? You seem awfully defensive about them! I thought Ian was either Scotch or Irish, but you would certainly make a person wonder http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Stormy

[Republackan73]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

As a former staunch Democrat, I definitely have an appreciation for President Bush because, when he is asked a question, no matter how tough, he answers it straightforward. In the case of Democrats, I always hear answers to questions I didn't ask.

As in the case for Byrd, I want to know:

1. What are your current ties to the Klan and other supremasist groups?
2. Will you go on BET to answer questions about your clearly documented racist past, not just what has been inferred? If Trent had to do it, why the pass for you?
3. Will you open a resturant named Byrd's Baby-Back Ribs for Brother Bashing Billie-Bob Billy Goat Lovers? The reason for the question is the amount of pork flowing to W. Virginia since you ran Appropriations.
4. When you stated in an interview on Fox 2 years ago, that you "knew some white niggers", was this opposed to some blacks that you referred this ephithet to?

So, I have no need for your play by play of Bush's job integrity. The Democrats are so busy figuring ways to attack Bush, they forgot they forfieted their moral integrity to judge anything, when they decided to become apologizers/enablers for Clinton.

Finally, as US intel puts the peices together of how Al Queda has been connected to middle eastern governments for the past 10 years, Byrd, and Democrats of his ilk, will commit Hari Kari, when they realize no Democrat will be elected as President for the next 12 years. This garauntee is based on the fact that Democrats are too busy winning popularity contests, instead of having spines and defending this country from attack.

[pRIMrose]

Hi Republackan73 http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wavey.gif and welcome to http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/gopusa.gif

Glad you found your way out of the "jungle" into "civilization" http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin2.gif I think the good Senator just received a huge pile of letters, emails, faxes etc from one of our activist groups http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twothumbsup.gif ~ which I'm sure he will totally ignore. It's really sad to think that he is the best that W Virginia has to offer. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif

[stormy]

Quote[/b] ] I think the good Senator just received a huge pile of letters, emails, faxes etc from one of our activist groups ~ which I'm sure he will totally ignore. It's really sad to think that he is the best that W Virginia has to offer.

Yes, Rim, he refused it! Refused to have his picture taken, as well! If you'll look at the post I put in from Grassfire, they took out an ad in a Washington paper to address him when he refused them, too! Of course, if you refuse petitions from THE PEOPLE, you probably don't read the newspaper, either. You just continue to spout your hate, as he has done!

Thanks, Republackan---you put forth some excellent questions that we'll never get answers to!

Stormy

[USNfromME]

Quote[/b] ]"the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises,"


Many Americans, including some Conservatives, would have to agree with this statement. That doesn't make it true. *Byrd and the rest of the Dems are taking advantage of an opportunity to try to undermine the President. It is a political maneuver that truly gives credence to the idea that the Dems do not care a whit about the country, they are only interested in regaining power. Even the above quote used the conditional "may" in its accusation.

The Bush administration used several reasons to justify intervention in Iraq.

1. That Iraq had WMD's.

That Iraq had WMD was a given. Saddam used them against the Iranians and Kurds. He threatened to use them against US/Brit forces to defend Baghdad. His troops had been issued chem protective suits and atropine.

The UN imposed sanctions after Gulf War I, requiring Saddam to disarm (specifically SCUD's and WMD). He refused. He had tons of precursor materials that he failed to account for and proven stores of bacteriological and chemical weapons that supposedly been destroyed but no supportive documentation could be produced. One would have to be sceptical at the lack of documentation given the precise documentation devoted to torture, killings and financial dealings.

2. He was in violation of numerous UN resolutions.

The coalition forces were still at war with Iraq in 2003. A conditional cease-fire ended the fighting but the conditions were being perpetually violated by the Iraqis.

Saddam was openly defiant of the UN, and the US in particular. By portraying the UN/US as paper tigers , he gave the impression to the Muslim world that he was a powerful man and a force to be taken seriously. By portraying us as weak, he may well have encouraged radicals to dare to engage us with terrorist acts, setting the stage for 9/11. He was a destabilizing entity, not just in the Middle East, but worldwide.

3. He was involved in terrorism, in general; the Sept. 11 bombing in particular.

Iraq was an annual member of the world's terror states. He was paying the families of homicide bombers in the Palestinian enclaves a $25K reward. He gave safe haven to some of the the world's most wanted terrorists. He provided training facilities in the northern Iraq area, as well as a camp near Baghdad that featured a training aircraft remarkably similiar to those used in the World Trade Center disaster. Even if he did not plan or finance 9/11, he provided safe haven, training facilities and other support for the perpetrators. His ruthlessness, mockery of world authority and hatred for the US left little room for doubt that he would arm either his own people or foreign terrorist with WMD with which to attack the US or other Western countries.

4. He was not a nice person.

We had known since before the 1st GW that Saddam had gassed his opponents. We knew he had an extensive prison and torture system. After the 2nd GW we knew he was violating the sanctions, withholding food and medicine from his people and blaming the UN/US for deaths resulting from his persecution of his own people.

We had intelligence information gained through satellite, electronic and human means. We had first person accounts from defectors, including two of Saddam's sons-in-law. We didn't fabricate the information. As it is, the deeds performed by Saddam and his sons would not be believed if we did try to fabricate a story and sell it to the American people. Even Hollywood couldn't produce *anything as vile as the truth under Saddam.

The blame for confusion about the true reason we had to intervene is probably shared between the Administration and the media. The Administration did not present a coherent message to the public. State, Defense and the White House all placed different emphasis on the various reasons at different times. The media exacerbated the problem by highlighting the dissonance and downplaying any coherency that was presented.

Taken alone, any of the above could be sufficient to take action. Not from a standing start but on the heels of the cease-fire and UN resolutions. Together, they present a compelling reason to act and necessitate firm, direct confrontation with the state of Iraq.


CA, I reread all the posts in this thread and I don't think you're a liberal. * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Terri]

Republackan73, excellent questions to which you will never hear answers.

Quote[/b] ]So, I have no need for your play by play of Bush's job integrity. The Democrats are so busy figuring ways to attack Bush, they forgot they forfieted their moral integrity to judge anything, when they decided to become apologizers/enablers for Clinton.

Exactly! Just like some of the liberals in this thread, their hatred of Bush is so obvious and so senseless that anything they say is suspect.

Ian, the only thing you've ever said that I can agree with is that you are off topic, eternally and always off topic in every thread you post to. What is it with you liberals? Have you spun so often and so far that you are just totally out of control? I think you need new DNC talking points. Call Terry McAuliffe! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif

Quote[/b] ]CA, I reread all the posts in this thread and I don't think you're a liberal.

Maybe not USN, but when people support irrational people like Byrd, does it really matter if they are classic liberals or not? Isn't the end result the same?

[USNfromME]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe not USN, but when people support irrational people like Byrd, does it really matter if they are classic liberals or not? Isn't the end result the same?

I re-reread the thread and I still think CA is not a liberal. In fact, he pretty strongly differs with Byrd except on one point. Even on that point he does not back up Byrd, he relates his own uneasiness with the WMD question. That's a legitimate question.

Quote[/b] ]Does anyone have PROOF that Hussein was not in on that,

It is logically impossible to prove a negative.

Quote[/b] ]Any way here's a link if it matters:
Although there has been no proven link between Saddam Hussein and the events of Sept. 11


I'm not going to take a CBS infotainment website as a credible reference, sorry!

Quote[/b] ]Even if *WMD was the excuse to go into Iraq, so what?

I think CA can agree with you as to the validity of the war, but he makes the point that there "appears" to have been some deception involved. Lying by government officials is wrong, eg Clinton.


Quote[/b] ]There are those in this very forum that seem to advocate killing Muslims. What in the world do they care if Hussien was helping them in this task?

Sarcasm?

Quote[/b] ]We give Israel billions every year. I imagine a large chunk of it goes to buying tanks and weapons that kill Palestinian civilians along with their intended military targets. Not exactly a reward, sort of a pre-payment.


Apples and oranges. While I don't approve of the methodology, I can understand Israel's actions. To equate our supporting a nation defending itself to a despot who rewards families of homicide-bombers is ludacrous. One case is a legitimate government defending itself and the other is support for an illegitimate band of terrorists engaged in committing atrocities.

Quote[/b] ]As I said, I think he's a whackjob. Doesn't mean that the facts aren't on his side, at least up 'til now.

True, "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day."

Quote[/b] ]to say our war in Iraq is illegal is equivalent to being against the freedoms our country was founded on, and made in-writing in the U.S. Constitution

To disagree with the merits of the war (which CA didn't) is a matter of opinion not treason. The Constitution places limits on the government; it does not address foreign policy. Administrations and Congresses determine our foreign policy.

Quote[/b] ]As much as I know agreeing with Ian is tantamount to painting a target on myself, had the war with Iraq been presented on honest terms I'm sure we would have had much more support across this country and the world.


I, for one, did know of the many different reasons the administration was giving for intervention in Iraq. I heard Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Blair all state the reasons at one time or another. I was also very uncomfortable with the message. It was incoherent and seemed de-emphasized. Polling data, stupid reporter questions, the economy and the "little dwarves" Dems seemed to keep the Administration off balance. The message was there but you really had to work to make sense of it. The message was there but it was a pi$$poor presentation.

[Terri]

Regardless of the administrations perceived inability to convey the message, or more accurately the real inability of some to understand it, the fact remains that it took 12 years of liberal handwringing, 13 worthless UN resolutions, and one Texan to set in motion the tools to bring down a despot.

George Bush did a good thing.

And all the liberal, quasi liberal, and marginal liberal whining and p*ssing and moaning that we are hearing in this thread, and elsewhere, doesn't make one whit of difference.

A good thing was accomplished without the help of KKK Byrd, liberals, Democrats or the French. Sorry for my redundancy in the last sentence.

[primate]

Let's see, No WMDs found so far despite the certainty Bush expressed that they would find them. Bush's reliance on documents that later turned out to be bad forgeries. Bush's everchancing justifications for war in Iraq while pursuing the opposite policy with other, tougher and more dangerous nations (Iran, North Korea).
This topic shows how hypocritical so many Republicans can be. This was obviously a 'Wag the Dog' situation. How can you justify the cynical use of Prvt. Jessica Lynch as a propaganda tool?
She was never shot or stabbed as asserted by the administration, and her 'rescue' was clearly a staged media event. The Republicans made much of Clinton's lack of military service and the efforts he went to to avoid Viet Nam, while conveniently forgetting that Bush was Awol for almost a year.
In Fact, out of both the House and the Senate, the majority of military veterans are Dems. Pretty embarassing. It is getting harder and harder for thinking folk to stand by in good conscience and support the conservative movement. We need to fight to assure that the people's representatives on BOTH sides are working with integrity and for the good of the country and not just follow the guy who wears the right team jersey.

[USNfromME]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif * * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif * **http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif * **http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif * * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif * * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif * * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif * **http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif * *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif

Quote[/b] ]Regardless of the administrations perceived inability to convey the message, or more accurately the real inability of some to understand it, the fact remains that it took 12 years of liberal handwringing, 13 worthless UN resolutions, and one Texan to set in motion the tools to bring down a despot.

George Bush did a good thing.


You'll get no disagreement from me. I just thought that some people were a little too thin-skinned and too quick to jump on CA.

[Terri]

Quote[/b] ]You'll get no disagreement from me. I just thought that some people were a little too thin-skinned and too quick to jump on CA.

That's the chance he takes when he speaks in support of Byrd.

No one who does that needs to expect to get any respect from me.

primate, I think they're missing you over at DU.

Results count. Whines don't.

[primate]

Quote[/b] (Terri @ May 24, 2003 -- 1:35 pm)]Quote[/b] ]You'll get no disagreement from me. I just thought that some people were a little too thin-skinned and too quick to jump on CA.

That's the chance he takes when he speaks in support of Byrd.

No one who does that needs to expect to get any respect from me.

primate, I think they're missing you over at DU.

Results count. Whines don't.
Results do count. Absolutely.

So what about the results. No WMDs, looted nuclear sites with much missing radioactive materials, a populace without basic services such as clean water and elctricity to enable functioning hospitals...
Yeah, what people wouldn't be thrilled with that?
The natural results are: increased membership in violent anti-US organizations, mass mortality, dangerous materials dispersed into the hands of groups unfriendly organizations.

Nice one.

Notice you don't have any counter arguments.
typical of mindless followers of fascist dicators, no?

[Terri]

No WMDs so far because most of them were probably moved to Syria while the UN and the French Democrats whined.

To whine about lack of control of every spot in the country of Iraq during and immediately after the war is simply more smoke blown by those of you who weren't willing to do what it took to see Saddam deposed.

Iraq infrastructure was in terrible shape before we went there. They will all have lights and water in due course. There was a report last week about this.

Quote[/b] ]typical of mindless followers of fascist dicators, no?
Are you an expert on mindlessness too? *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin5.gif

[primate]

Quote[/b] (Terri @ May 24, 2003 -- 2:15 pm)]No WMDs so far because most of them were probably moved to Syria while the UN and the French Democrats whined.

To whine about lack of control of every spot in the country of Iraq during and immediately after the war is simply more smoke blown by those of you who weren't willing to do what it took to see Saddam deposed.

Iraq infrastructure was in terrible shape before we went there. They will all have lights and water in due course. There was a report last week about this.

Quote[/b] ]typical of mindless followers of fascist dicators, no?
Are you an expert on mindlessness too? http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin5.gif
Bush and Co. said they knew where the WMDs were. We had an unprecedented view of the region using satelites, Predator drones and special ops. While it is quite possible that some small amount of materials could have been smuggled to Syria, it is insulting to the US military to presume they missed the volume of material Bush said Saddam had.
The smoke being blown is by you who feel compelled to defend an illegal and immoral war of colonial aggression. It doesn't even take imagination to see that this war wasn't really about WMDs or even deposing a ruthless dictator, but about controling the flow of oil in the region. Hence the non-competetive contracts awarded Cheney's, Bush's, Rumsfelds, Perles, etc. cronies. Corporate curruption made this administration and appears to be what the Republiban is all about.
It is a further insult to the competence of the American military to propose that they could not prevent the looting of more than two sites. C'mon, we did far better after WWII.
Yes, the Iraqi infrastructure was in bad shape, rather like ours at the moment. But they did have water and 24hour electricity and functioning hospitals. They don't now. Do you hear their gratitude?

As for my expertise on mindlessness. No, I'm not an expert yet, despite my living in Utah with perhaps the largest tribe of Sheeple in the US. I frequent these forums as part of my research into the subject though and you have proven to be an invaluable research subject.
I find particularly fascinating the depths of denial and legths gone to preserve comfortable myths and weak attempts to discredit opponents by insult and denigration rather than strain atrophied mental muscle and formulate rational arguments.

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Terri]

Quote[/b] ]it is insulting to the US military to presume they missed the volume of material Bush said Saddam had.

Listen real hard. I'll type slowly. They were already gone in the 6 months while your kind http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/surrender.gif drug their feet.

I'd love to see you live your life without that oil that you are so against. We should set up a test state for you and yours. One you can't get out of.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, the Iraqi infrastructure was in bad shape, rather like ours at the moment. But they did have water and 24hour electricity and functioning hospitals. They don't now. Do you hear their gratitude?

I think you've topped all the ridiculous statements that other liberal trolls have made here. Comparing Iraq's infrastructure and US infrastructure shows you don't have a clue about anything.

I'm sorry that the good people of Utah have to put up with you but the good people at http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/gopusa.gif don't have to.

Bye! *Go troll somewhere else.

[lpara]

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'>I find particularly fascinating the depths of denial and le[n]gths gone to preserve comfortable myths and weak attempts to discredit opponents by insult and denigration rather than strain atrophied mental muscle and formulate rational arguments.

Perfect definition of democrats if I ever heard one http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrinangelA.gif

&quot;The smoke being blown is by you who feel compelled to defend an illegal and immoral war of colonial aggression. It doesn't even take imagination to see that this war wasn't really about WMDs or even deposing a ruthless dictator, but about controling the flow of oil in the region. Hence the non-competetive contracts awarded Cheney's, Bush's, Rumsfelds, Perles, etc. cronies. Corporate curruption made this administration and appears to be what the Republiban is all about.&quot;

If Bush &amp; Co. were only in it for the oil~~wouldn't the oil prices be going UP rather than DOWN as they are right now? *You'd think that if they were controlling everything they'd at least try to make a little money at it, rather than lose money over it http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/shake.gif</span>

[Bill Hodges]

Quote[/b] ]The smoke being blown is by you who feel compelled to defend an illegal and immoral war of colonial aggression. It doesn't even take imagination to see that this war wasn't really about WMDs or even deposing a ruthless dictator, but about controling the flow of oil in the region. Hence the non-competetive contracts awarded Cheney's, Bush's, Rumsfelds, Perles, etc. cronies. Corporate curruption made this administration and appears to be what the Republiban is all about.
It is a further insult to the competence of the American military to propose that they could not prevent the looting of more than two sites. C'mon, we did far better after WWII.


Very interesting allegations and charges you seem too compelled to declare upon the leadership of our nation and their reasoning (though it was overwhelmingly a bipartisan effort) for discarding the 1991 Cease-Fire Agreement with Iraq as it was agreed to and then breached by Mr. Saddam Hussein. Regardless of the fact that Mr. Hussein was in clear breach of the Agreement and in violation of countless United Nations Resolutions enacted by utilizing International Law, you have chosen to charge the leadership of the United States with high crimes. I suppose to ensure to not make yourself appear as too much of an idiot you have found compelling evidence to support your allegations? Would it be too much of us to request that you bring such evidence forward in order to support your assumptions and allegations? Otherwise, you have done little more than to 'blow smoke' and disseminate libel and slander. You offer an interesting scenario, can you offer any factual evidence to support such a ludicrous allegations? Interesting argument you offer but hardly original nor is it believable.
As for the actual FACTUAL reason that we went to war with Iraq I would suggest you learn the history of the 1991 Iraqi Cease-Fire Agreement.
By the way, other Liberals such as yourself who were ignorant of the facts attempted to use your very same argument in 1990 when the 41st president prepared to answer the United Nation's request for the United States to use military force against Iraq's agression against Kuwait. Why is it that your argument was proven to be false at that time and then rebirthed after we acted in accordance to International Law in the second war against Iraq?
So far you have offered nothing more than libel and slander in your statements. Your credibility is at zero point zero until you can provide some type of factual evidence to support your reckless allegations.

William (Bill) Douglas Hodges
T/O Ranch
Erick, Oklahoma



http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[NWGOPMom]

Well, this has been an interesting thread. Started with a discussion about Byrd and then down the thread a ways, someone was called a mindless fascist? *What's the deal?

Terri, there is a small group of individuals on this forum that sound like they come from the exact same school of thought.
They misspell the same, they quote alot of the same items and passages and have the same political ideologies. If you can call it that. And they are now at the point of making personal assaults. A friend of mine and I had a discussion about these people and I won't waste my time arguing with them anymore. It is a huge waste of time.

[Terri]

Yes, the constant mindless sniping at the president gets old. They would lie down with Byrd and Saddam before they would ever admit that George Bush did anything right.

I do understand that some of our conservative members like the back and forth that the liberals provide but we are only going to keep those who at least attempt to post with some logic.

The trolls will be moved out very quickly just as this one was.

[iansays]

&lt;long rant excised once I remembered the thead was about Byrd&gt;

[Terri]

Thank you.

[Bill Hodges]

Quote[/b] ]&lt;long rant excised once I remembered the thead was about Byrd&gt;

The wisest thing.

Quote[/b] ]Thank you.

I'll go ahead and chime on this one.


Quote[/b] ]Quote
it is insulting to the US military to presume they missed the volume of material Bush said Saddam had.


Listen real hard. I'll type slowly. They were already gone in the 6 months while your kind drug their feet.

I'm struck by the same thought.


http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[pRIMrose]

Just my http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twocents.gif but I think that liberal posts should have to pass through the &quot;redundancy&quot; filter before they are finalized. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif I've read the sameoh, sameoh ~ ad nauseam liberal talking points page after page and it's a colossal waste of bandwidth. They obviously don't read what we post and if they do they ignore plausible facts.

Quote[/b] ]primate, I think they're missing you over at DU.

Bubbye primate. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wavey.gif

BOT ~ Byrd is an unconscionable hypocrit of the first magnitude. He is a gross ignoramus which is 144 times worse than a regular ignoramus. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin2.gif What's worse, he's too stupid to realize he's sawing off the limb he's perched on. Moderate liberals are distancing themselves from him as fast as they can. That pile of letters, emails and faxes may not have reached the old coot, but the sheer volume speaks for itself. You can bet someone read them. My advice to Mr. Byrd is, be careful what you throw at the wall, it might bounce back and hit you instead. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laff.gif

[Constitutional American]

USNfromME,
Quote[/b] ]CA, I reread all the posts in this thread and I don't think you're a liberal.
Thanks for watching out for me in my absense. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I agree with all 4 of your points and if anyone got the impression that I don't think Saddam got what he had coming than I have obviously not made my point clear.
The fact that the ends justify the means does not change the fact that the &quot;premise&quot; was WMD's.
We all know that he &quot;had&quot; WMD, he used them on his own people so it's impossible to deny. During the debate leading up to the conflict the administration insisted that he &quot;has&quot; WMD and that we could prove it. Colin Powell went before the UN with satellite photos of the sites where the WMD's were stored. How those same satellites, trained on those same areas, could miss the mass exodus of those WMD's to Syria is a legitimate question. Of course we all know what the answer to that question is...&quot;Liberal, Terrorist supporter!&quot;

Whether those WMD were destroyed while the UN debated (a good thing), moved to Syria (a horrible thing) or destroyed by Saddam years earlier in compliance with UN resolutions (an absurd notion) doesn't matter. It makes it appear fishy.

Quote[/b] ]You'll get no disagreement from me. I just thought that some people were a little too thin-skinned and too quick to jump on CA.
Again, thanks.
I painted a target on myself so I was expecting to be jumped on. I had hoped it would be for the sake of discussion but I see that the convienent dismissal of &quot;liberal&quot; has been employed yet again. Ho-hum....

Terri,
Quote[/b] ]when people support irrational people like Byrd, does it really matter
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I &quot;support&quot; Byrd. I certainly have never voted for him. If someone, anyone, makes a point that I think has some merit then I will defend that point. I don't care who said it.
If Byrd said the sky is blue, that wouldn't make you a &quot;Byrd Supporter&quot; because you happened to notice that it is. For all I know Byrd is the KKK supporting anti-christ that everyone is making him out to be. I could care less. If he tells me the sky is blue then I have to admit the sky is blue. I refuse to pretend to be color blind because I don't like the messenger. I also refuse to pretend the sky is green to maintain a lock-step with any administration. Democracy demands people who can think for themselves, not puppets.

The very FIRST sentence of the very FIRST post I made in this thread was,
&quot;Obviously you don't care for the messenger but a case can be made that:&quot;
Obviously a case can be made. Several of them have. You don't have to agree with them but they are still legitimate points of discussion. Every discussion is not a Bush bashing fest for me. I can't speak for anyone but myself but I don't hate George Bush. I've stated in the past, in other threads, that I think he's doing a much better job than all the nay-sayers predicted.

Quote[/b] ]George Bush did a good thing
I agree. I was very pleasantly amused at the backtracking of the rest of the axis of evil when they found out how serious we could be.

Quote[/b] ]I do understand that some of our conservative members like the back and forth that the liberals provide
Again, I can't speak for anyone else who's been painted with the very broad &quot;liberal&quot; brush that gets employeed constantly in this forum but I enjoy the &quot;back and forth&quot; myself.
Maybe that's not why other people are here.
Maybe they just want a comfortable place to gloat in how &quot;Right&quot; they are.
It's your playground. You can (and do) kick people out with impunity. That doesn't do much to defend anyones point of view or further discourse but if people would prefer to just be left alone to pat each other on the back I can understand. I certainly have better things to do with my time then spend it writing thought-out, research posts that are completely ignored &amp; only rebutted with the word &quot;liberal&quot; by people who apparently can't put the time/effort/thought/energy into backing up their own viewpoints with logic.


P.S. Bill Hodges, that last sentence definitely does NOT apply to you... *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Terri]

Quote[/b] ]Just my *but I think that liberal posts should have to pass through the &quot;redundancy&quot; filter before they are finalized. * I've read the sameoh, sameoh ~ ad nauseam liberal talking points page after page and it's a colossal waste of bandwidth. *They obviously don't read what we post and if they do they ignore plausible facts.

Exactly! *CA and Ian, read and heed. *Back and forth is one thing but the constant repetition of one note Bush hating that you are engaging in here is getting very old.

Quote[/b] ]I painted a target on myself so I was expecting to be jumped on. I had hoped it would be for the sake of discussion but I see that the convienent dismissal of &quot;liberal&quot; has been employed yet again. Ho-hum....

Maybe you should pay attention, CA. We've been listening to the carping about George Bush endlessly for years now. The only thing that ever changes is the reason. He proves liberals wrong over and over and over but you just change your whine enough to start it up again.

It's not just some of us on this board that are sick of the unfounded accusations. Liberals love polls, read them. They support Bush and they do NOT support those who are doing the complaining.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure where you got the impression that I &quot;support&quot; Byrd. I certainly have never voted for him.
Another disingeuous statement. Do you live in WV? Of course not. You aligned yourself with Byrd's statements. Obviously that is support.

Quote[/b] ]For all I know Byrd is the KKK supporting anti-christ that everyone is making him out to be. I could care less.
Yes, we know that doesn't matter to you. We find that very revealing.

Quote[/b] ]Again, I can't speak for anyone else who's been painted with the very broad &quot;liberal&quot; brush that gets employeed constantly in this forum but I enjoy the &quot;back and forth&quot; myself.


All of you need to know that I am getting complaints about the constant sniping and biting by the Bush haters here. The thought is that every thread is being turned into a way to bash Bush.

Now, I'm sure you find the Bush bashing to be lots of fun but this is a conservative forum and I will be listening to comments on this situation.

So far, Bush bashing seems to be the main reason some of you are here. If you have any desire to discuss other issues, you might want to give that a try.

[Bill Hodges]

Quote[/b] ]P.S. Bill Hodges, that last sentence definitely does NOT apply to you...

**LAUGHING**
CA, that is exactly why I like and respect you, your passion and honesty. You and I may look at the same thing and not see the same thing. You and I both see exactly what we see as individuals, not what someone else tells us to look for or influences us what they want us to see.
Too many Liberals come into this OBVIOUSLY Conservative forum not to debate or to share differing ideas but rather to attack at all costs. It is unfortunate for those who may wish to HONESTLY discuss and debate within the arena of political ideology BECAUSE it puts those who wish to share individually important issues on the defensive all the time. It's not paranoia, but instead, conditioning.
After a while, it becomes quite easy to see into one's intentions within the first sentence or two of their post. It's nothing more than redundancy in it's most common form.
No, it is obvious when someone is being honest and wishes to learn differing ideas and debate them, it is equally obvious when they have no intention of doing so.
Even within the same team of players there are going to be differing strategies but that is no excuse to allow the opposing team to come in and attempt to completely disrupt or corrupt through increments into our gameplan.
One thing I hate with complete passion are instigators and anarchist. It appears that within the arena of political ideology there are too many of them. When those types of snakes raise their head up to strike, I attempt to cut their head off before they have the opportunity. As I said, they can quickly be seen for what they are if you recognize what you're looking at.
I appreciate honest people, with honest debate, with honest passion. The problem is, these qualities are rare among those who attempt to impose Liberalism.

I apologize for taking this completely off topic, but since it was previously taken to where it is, I thought I would travel the road a little further.
CA, thank you. I take what you said as a compliment.

William (Bill) Douglas Hodges
T/O Ranch
Erick, Oklahoma



http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[pRIMrose]

Quote[/b] ]I apologize for taking this completely off topic,

Ten lashes with a wet noodle and to bed without supper. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

BOT ~ Byrd misspoke. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rotflo.gif

[Terri]

Bill, I agree with some of what you said, not all. As far as taking it off topic it was already done by the Bush haters. This is a trend that is worsening daily here and it has to stop.

Personal hatred for George Bush is coloring today's political discourse as much as personal hatred for Bill Clinton colored it in the 90s. In fact, it's really just a get even, &quot;get back atcha&quot; attitude that many of you have.

We aren't going to put up with it here.

If you hate Bush you are in the wrong forum.

We've heard all you have to say. We've heard it said by people who are professional speakers many, many times and they said it better. All of it smacks of sour and rancid grapes.

Your hatred of the man leads you to argue totally ridiculous points in totally ridiculous ways.

So, if you wish to debate issues, do it. Do it honestly, stay on topic, and be fair.

If your main reason for being in a conservative Republican forum is to express your hatred for the president or to teach us how wrong we are about him, you are definitely in the wrong place.

[Constitutional American]

Terri,
If you read my post &amp; still came to the conclusion that I'm a &quot;Bush Basher&quot; then there is obviously nothing more I can say.

[Constitutional American]

Bill,

As I agree with everything you said there's no need to point out a specific part.
I've taken some of the liberal trolls to task myself for their &quot;hit &amp; run&quot; agenda.

Thanks,

Steve

[BIG CASINO]

By golly CA, that you &quot;really have nothing more to say&quot; is the best news we have heard since GW wipped Gore in the election. Now don't crawfish on us, stick to your word.


Paddle Foreward, Kids

[pRIMrose]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laff.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/peepwallA.gif