If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rawstory)   88 members of congress want to know about a "secret meeting between Britain and America about 'creating' conditions to justify war in Iraq." Fark & the MSM surrender   (rawstory.com) divider line 657
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

25896 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2005 at 10:57 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-09 09:36:45 AM
C'mon, Vegasj, that's bush league (pun intended). Who cares what Congress or Clinton said about Iraq back in the '90s. The bottom line is that all you've quoted are generalized statements of support for a Saddam-free Iraq. Nothing speaks of an invasion of Iraq being immediately necessary because of the urgent strategic threat Saddam supposedly posed to us.

In fact, if you view the quoted statements in context, they supported continuation of the no-fly zone and UN economic sanctions, not war.

Nice try though.
 
2005-05-09 09:37:51 AM
2005-05-09 09:29:55 AM kevin5lynn

He did mention it, but only as a secondary effect, never as the prime reason for invading Iraq.


It was a prime reason. It was listed in every speech leading up to the war. There were always 3 constant reasons for going to iraq. If you didn't pay attention to the reasons is your fault alone.

Skip
 
2005-05-09 09:39:20 AM
unexplained bacon said:

democrats and republicans are two sides of the same crooked coin. anyone who argues differently is still sleeping.


One might argue that Bush and the PNAC folks have taken it to a whole new level... but the democrats certainly aren't acting like much of an opposition party.
 
2005-05-09 09:40:03 AM
vegasj

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein

we've made efforts. to me that's different than supporting efforts, and we both know the lawmakers (lawyers) that drafted that went over every word.

supporting efforts to me says funding, air support, maybe some special ops, and weapons. is it just me?
 
2005-05-09 09:42:33 AM
vegasj

...just giving out facts

ahhhh, I see
carry on.
 
2005-05-09 09:46:40 AM
2005-05-09 09:28:21 AM unexplained bacon

skipjack

hey skip, which people will we free next?
chinese
iranian
N. Korean
sudanese
how about the saudis their women are oppressed. why have we not freed them?

I could go on and on. why are we in iraq again? right, freedom.
colin powell said there is genocide happening in sudan. where's the freedom force? obviously freedom is not as important as you think to this administration


Did i say i approved of everything bush does/did? Unlike you, i don't subscribe to the group think put out by either party. I form my own opinions based upon what makes sense. You should try it some time.

Chinese: don't need to, our economies are interdependent upon one another. usually, countries whose economies rely on each other don't go to war. I'm sure you already knew that though.

Iran: We could, i suspect however that they have shot themselves in the foot by sending to many of their children to universities outside their country. I expect to see this generation rise up and demand democracy.

N. Korea: Diplomacy hasn't played out yet, lets see what happens.

Sudan: I'm all for it. Something needs to be done.

Saudi Arabia: I'm all for it. Lets go there next.

I'm sure that you will support such things since you brought them up, correct? Or were you just talking out of your ass. I'm betting you are just talking out of your ass.

Skip
 
2005-05-09 09:48:06 AM
Again, skipjack, you're acknowledging only what you like.

Bush did repeatedly decry Saddam's human rights abuses, just like all the presidents before him (and most world leaders). But Bush's justification for the urgency of full-scale war in Iraq was not what Saddam was continuing to do to his own people (just a contination of what he was doing when Bush I left him free), it was the supposed threat Saddam posed to the United States.

If Bush had the balls to come out and urge an invasion on human rights grounds, I would have been right with him. Instead, he urged the WMD pretext as a justification because he (like other presidents) didn't have the stones to set up a human rights intervention precedent on such a huge scale for fear it would come back to haunt him in the future.

And in my view, using a pretext to mislead the American people into making war on another nation is unethical and immoral. Men of courage and decency do not do that.
 
2005-05-09 09:54:09 AM
themeaningoflifeisnot:

Nothing speaks of an invasion of Iraq being immediately necessary because of the urgent strategic threat Saddam supposedly posed to us.

let me repeat that one....

Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.
Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate
response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of
mass destruction.

Clinton and Co. say it.... - must be true.

W and Co. say it, must be a big lie.

...and I hate politics/politicians in general. I think they are all crooks, ex-car salesmen... but ya bash one, ya gotta bash them all. They ALL said it and believed it.

 
2005-05-09 09:54:10 AM
skipjack, but the WMD was the only legal argument we used. It was pretty much the only legal argument we COULD use. Hussein committed genocide on the Kurds but we couldn't nail him for that because apparently you aren't legally allowed to invade somebody for that crap. We actually downlplayed it while it was happening under Reagan because Saddam was a 'strategic ally'. When we urged those failed uprisings in 91 and 96 and then refused to support them with our own forces, we screwed the Iraqis over 10x worse than anything we've done during the current war, and history will judge us harshly for it.
 
2005-05-09 09:54:24 AM
[Talking about London Times article]

However, if these charges can be substantiated by something more solid than the usual liberal hyperbole...

Your characterisation of the Times as "liberal" shows exactly your grasp of the situation.
 
2005-05-09 09:56:47 AM
themeaningoflifeisnot:

If Bush had the balls to come out and urge an invasion on human rights grounds, I would have been right with him.

HAHAHA!! Yeah right, you would have been screaming about how he was after their oil and how he would just install some puppet dictator like Pinochet. Then when the new Democratically elected Iraqi government committed human rights abuses, you'd call Bush a liar and accuse him of leading us to war under false pretenses. How much you wanna bet?
 
2005-05-09 09:57:09 AM
...just giving out facts that it was Clinton who laid down the path, W took it.

Interesting. The Clinton paved it excuse/rationale.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The above is what the 1,600 U.S. causalities looks like to Bush.
 
2005-05-09 10:00:25 AM
You know, the funny thing is that most pro-war people don't give two shiats about Iraqis and most anti-war people don't give two shiats about dead soldiers, everyone just wants to be proved right.
 
2005-05-09 10:01:31 AM
Read the words you quoted, vegasj.

The statement says IF the Iraqis rise up to liberate themselves, the US will provide support. It doesn't say anything about the US sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to liberate the Iraqis despite their not rising up, and it doesn't say anything about spending half a trillion of our taxpayer dollars doing it.
 
2005-05-09 10:02:01 AM
2005-05-09 09:48:06 AM themeaningoflifeisnot [TotalFark]

Again, skipjack, you're acknowledging only what you like.

Bush did repeatedly decry Saddam's human rights abuses, just like all the presidents before him (and most world leaders). But Bush's justification for the urgency of full-scale war in Iraq was not what Saddam was continuing to do to his own people (just a contination of what he was doing when Bush I left him free), it was the supposed threat Saddam posed to the United States.

If Bush had the balls to come out and urge an invasion on human rights grounds, I would have been right with him. Instead, he urged the WMD pretext as a justification because he (like other presidents) didn't have the stones to set up a human rights intervention precedent on such a huge scale for fear it would come back to haunt him in the future.

And in my view, using a pretext to mislead the American people into making war on another nation is unethical and immoral. Men of courage and decency do not do that.


Since you are a man of courage and decency, you will be the first to say that bush did make grounds for going into iraq not based soley on WMD, as you have sold yourself, but based upon several different reasons, and those reasons having nothing to do with WMD.

I'm also sure, since you are a man of courage and decency, that you will include other people that "misled" us into this war. That list most likely includes the man you voted for, if you voted at all. Unless of course it's only bush's fault, which i'm sure you just know is the case. What was the senate vote count on authorizing our troops to go into iraq? That's right 77-23, but wait, bush is the only one that mislead's people. The Senate majority leader at the time had some pretty strong words about why he supported the authorization. I'm sure it was just more republican talking points though.

Skip
 
2005-05-09 10:02:05 AM

Complete with MUSIC VIDEO
http://rapidshare.de/files/949824/War_Pigs-_Small.wmv.html
 
2005-05-09 10:03:49 AM
skipjack

Did i say i approved of everything bush does/did? Unlike you, i don't subscribe to the group think put out by either party. I form my own opinions based upon what makes sense. You should try it some time.

Did i say you approved of everything bush does/did?
yes, thank god for singularities like yourself.
is group think your mental tick today?
I'd say I'm not part of the group think, but then that's just what someone in the group think would say. group think...

I'm sure that you will support such things since you brought them up, correct? Or were you just talking out of your ass. I'm betting you are just talking out of your ass.

Of course I don't support jumping into one sovereign country after another to install democracies. the whole idea that we have a right to do so is the problem with people like you.
now sudan, that's something different. in cases of government sponsored genocide I think the UN led by the US if necessary should take control...of course the UN has been broke down for a while now. so maybe we should get in there...to bad we're all tied up. was that mentioned in w's speeches ahead of this bs war?
 
2005-05-09 10:05:35 AM
bbcrackmonkey, your comment shows how little you know me, and how little attention you've paid to anything I've said in these innumberable Iraq War threads. I've been on the side of human rights interventions my whole life, regardless of other potential motives. The bottom line is that widespread human rights violations too often rise to a level of violence and sadism toward the citizens of a country that you can't morally ignore the events. In those situations, it's an easy call regardless of whether Bush would get oil.

But you keep spewing baseless speculation about my beliefs if you get off on it.
 
2005-05-09 10:07:42 AM
2005-05-09 09:54:10 AM bbcrackmonkey [TotalFark]

skipjack, but the WMD was the only legal argument we used. It was pretty much the only legal argument we COULD use. Hussein committed genocide on the Kurds but we couldn't nail him for that because apparently you aren't legally allowed to invade somebody for that crap. We actually downlplayed it while it was happening under Reagan because Saddam was a 'strategic ally'. When we urged those failed uprisings in 91 and 96 and then refused to support them with our own forces, we screwed the Iraqis over 10x worse than anything we've done during the current war, and history will judge us harshly for it.


Bush Sr. screwed up in 91. There is no doubt. History should judge us, and our government harshly for that. I've never heard your "legal" argument before. It's quite an interesting thought, except that the only body that might have a say in the legality of invasion has nothing to do with us. Unless we now bow to the UN. I don't remember the UN clause in our constitution.

Skip
 
2005-05-09 10:08:36 AM
unexplained bacon, France has vested economic interests in Sudan as well. France won't even allow us to put trade sanctions on them in the Security Council, and they vehemently deny that any genocide is going on over there, just as we did when for Saddam when he was our buddy buddy. No doubt though, since genocide is undeniably wrong, you would still support a coalition of nations liberating Sudan from Omar al-Bashir even without UN support, right?
 
2005-05-09 10:12:45 AM
themeaningoflifeisnot, well then, I'm glad you have such strong beliefs about human rights. I share those beliefs and I too, believe they should not be ignored, as they often are by so many. I have 20 somethings in my college classes who never even knew about Rwanda until they watched "Hotel Rwanda" on DVD.

So let me get this straight then, if we are to be logically consistent with your beliefs, you applaud the positive effects of the war but condemn Bush for lying about the reasons, right? Now the telling question is, what would you have done if you were the president?
 
2005-05-09 10:16:05 AM
2005-05-09 10:03:49 AM unexplained bacon

Did i say you approved of everything bush does/did?
yes, thank god for singularities like yourself.
is group think your mental tick today?
I'd say I'm not part of the group think, but then that's just what someone in the group think would say. group think...


I'm sure you know what the word "implied" means.

2005-05-09 10:03:49 AM unexplained bacon

Of course I don't support jumping into one sovereign country after another to install democracies. the whole idea that we have a right to do so is the problem with people like you.
now sudan, that's something different. in cases of government sponsored genocide I think the UN led by the US if necessary should take control...of course the UN has been broke down for a while now. so maybe we should get in there...to bad we're all tied up. was that mentioned in w's speeches ahead of this bs war?


Ah, so you bring it up, only to put it back down again. I figured you were just talking out of your ass. That's the problem with people like you. You want to make your point, but you don't want to follow through with the action necessary to drive your point home.

I wonder, do you know how many men and women are in our military now? Are you sure we are so tied up?

Better yet, let me talk to you in terms that you most likely approve of. BUSH EVIL, BUSH HITLER, FACIST PIG CONSERVATIVES, BLEAT, BLEAT, BLEAT. Is that better?

Skip
 
2005-05-09 10:16:10 AM
My cable interweb went down all last night, thanks to Comcast. And thusly I missed out on this flamewar.

Am I outraged? Yes. Am I surprised? Not really.
 
2005-05-09 10:16:43 AM
Here, skipjack, read the actual 2002 war powers authorization:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


The president was authorized to make war on Iraq if he determined that the security of the United States was threatened. Bush claimed that WMDs threatened the security of the United States, and invaded Iraq.

Note that the resolution does not say the president is authorized to invade Iraq if Saddam continues to be a piece of shiat to his own people.
 
2005-05-09 10:19:35 AM
bbcrackmonkey

in the case of true genocide, I do see a reason to go in.
from what I know of the situation over there genocide is indeed taking place, so reluctantly I would support going in against any objections.
Can you think of another country today in which such a cut and dry case for genocide can be made.
how about two years ago?

/iraq was a weak choice even with w's wmd claims that's the point I want to make. we should never have invaded iraq. invading a country should be a last resort.
 
2005-05-09 10:19:44 AM
Not that there is anything wrong with the letter (a clear democrat attempt at publicity) but does anyone know if that website is owned by George Soros?
 
2005-05-09 10:21:48 AM
bbcrackmonkey

I strongly believe that, in a representative democracy, the war-making power of the republic cannot legitimately be exercised without the informed consent of the people. Going to war on a pretext, then justifying the end result on an after-the-fact rationalization violates fundamental representational principles.

My greater fear is that accepting an "ends justifies the means" policy when the means is misleading the American people as to the reason for war in their name can lead to more serious acquiescences on civil rights issues here at home.
 
2005-05-09 10:23:14 AM
General Zang

Of course it is possible to conspire with others to do something and to keep it secret. What you seem to keep ignoring is that the greater the number of people involved, and the "grander" the subject of the conspiracy, the less likely it is that the conspiracy will succeed. The element of "success" that you ignore is the element of secrecy. Even if it was possible to undertake the kind of planning and execution across such a huge scope of our government (not to mention the private sector individuals who would have had to be complicit) to pull off the act, maintaining the secret would be impossible. What you suggest as a possibility is, in fact, impossible - and manifestly so. If you truly believe it to be possible, you are delusional.

How's that 8/1 draft thing coming?
 
2005-05-09 10:26:17 AM
2003-03-18 11:25:46 PM bbcrackmonkey

"J, if there's a chance that Iraq will become a Democracy, we will take it. Neither Japan nor Germany had democratic traditions before we invaded and imposed a Democracy on them, but it all worked out in the end. The same with South Korea and Kosovo.

Is invading Iraq risky? Yes, a huge risk, no doubt about that. But it is a risk that we, as moral beings, should be willing to take. Sometimes I feel that it is the US' responsibility to bring freedom and liberty to the world, even if it means forcibly."

That's what I said the day the war started.
 
2005-05-09 10:29:47 AM
skipjack

Ah, so you bring it up, only to put it back down again.

I brought it up to prove a point. w doesn't care about freeing people that's just the bait you ate.


I figured you were just talking out of your ass. That's the problem with people like you. You want to make your point, but you don't want to follow through with the action necessary to drive your point home.

group think...

I wonder, do you know how many men and women are in our military now?

not off hand. do you?
I know friends of mine in the reserves have been called up twice since the war in iraq started. they seem pretty busy.

Are you sure we are so tied up?

are you sure we aren't?
why would such a heavy burden be placed on our reserve units if we were operating with so much slack?

Better yet, let me talk to you in terms that you most likely approve of. BUSH EVIL, BUSH HITLER, FACIST PIG CONSERVATIVES, BLEAT, BLEAT, BLEAT. Is that better?

I think you have me confused with someone else, in any case good point. skeet skeet skeet.
 
2005-05-09 10:30:20 AM
If the memo is fake, please show me the official British denials.
 
2005-05-09 10:31:11 AM
unexplainedbacon

Invading Iraq was the only way to have any chance of getting the place turned around. And a nation filled of the disenfranchised and tormented isn't going to produce anything good. Oddly those same people are now being blown up by others claiming to be on their side. That'll work so well.

Then there's the matter of international law. Unlike civil law international law carries no weight because no one ever enforces it. So no one cares how many times they're on the books for breaking it. Civil law is respected because it is enforced. Thing is international law has no enforcement beyond in effect saying "No don't do that again or I'll come scold you again". Yet no one ever wants to adress that. And without enforcement, might as well throw it all out because it's useless.
 
2005-05-09 10:31:25 AM
2005-05-09 10:16:43 AM themeaningoflifeisnot [TotalFark]

Here, skipjack, read the actual 2002 war powers authorization:


Perhaps you mised the (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I'm sure you didn't.

2005-05-09 10:16:43 AM themeaningoflifeisnot [TotalFark]

The president was authorized to make war on Iraq if he determined that the security of the United States was threatened. Bush claimed that WMDs threatened the security of the United States, and invaded Iraq.

Note that the resolution does not say the president is authorized to invade Iraq if Saddam continues to be a piece of shiat to his own people.


I don't believe that i said the resolution said anything about saddam being a piece of shiate to his people we could invade. I believe our discussion was focused on whether or not bush mentioned other reasons for war than WMD. I had high hopes that you were a decent and courageous man, alas, you have now moved the goal posts showin us that you might not have the decency and courage you expect of others.

Skpi
 
2005-05-09 10:34:22 AM
...co-workers who "conspired" to sneak out to one guy's van to smoke dope on lunch hour

First rule of Dope Club...
 
2005-05-09 10:35:07 AM
bbcrackmonkey

My post the same day before the war:

2003-03-18 09:14:48 PM themeaningoflifeisnot

It really amazes me to see the number of people who refuse to acknowledge that going to war to end the reign of a despotic and inhuman regime is sufficient justification. It's like they're so caught up in the blood-for-oil or imperialism conspiracies that they can't admit that a basic human rights justification exists here.

The best example are those who counter that "other countries practice torture, so what are you going to invade them too?" That's a great view of the world--you can't take any steps to make life better for one group of people unless you intend to do it for everyone. Very reasonable. Very intelligent.


See, we do agree once in a while.
 
2005-05-09 10:38:03 AM
2003-03-19 04:26:56 AM bbcrackmonkey

Hehehe. Trying to break up a flamewar the day the Iraq War started.

"You know, one side of this entire fight will be proved right within one week. I think its safe to say that we can suspend arguments for awhile and let the losers eat crow afterwards."
 
2005-05-09 10:41:59 AM
Give it up, skipjack. I have said numerous times that Bush followed the line of countless other American and world leaders when he condemned Saddam's human rights violations. But he went into Iraq on the WMD premise, which was the only argument he had to get the people stirred up to supporting an immediate invasion. He couldn't argue the urgent need for an attack on human rights grounds because he had sat on that issue for years without doing anything.

The WMD threat was by far the primary Administration argument for immediate war, and it has been disproven to the extent that the Administration has admitted they got it wrong. But what does that admission mean in the face of information that the Bush Administration knew they were wrong right from the beginning, but chose to promote the pretext anyway? Pretty scary, in my view.
 
2005-05-09 10:42:03 AM
07734

Why would they give him a parking ticket for shooting his mom?
 
2005-05-09 10:42:54 AM
themeaningoflifeisnot, it appears as though I have gravely misjudged you, good sir. My most sincerest apologies. Long live freedom and liberty, both abroad and here at home, and down with all tyrants, whether they be suit-wearing or turban-sporting.

I really honestly don't care what happens to GWB from this point. People are going to try to impeach him maybe, or he'll just quietly sit out the remainder of his presidency vacationing, much like he did before 9/11.

Does anybody know when the Patriot Act sunset passes? Did it get reaffirmed?
 
2005-05-09 10:46:52 AM
No problem, bbcrackmonkey. It's nice to see others who also go back in time once in a while to see if their own views have remained consistent.
 
2005-05-09 10:49:49 AM
cargrrl82

Invading Iraq was the only way to have any chance of getting the place turned around.

for what? when did we decide that would be our job? I missed the meeting. what about improving our country? I think the ultimate point I would like to make is that we should not be the world police. except in extreme cases, we are the strongest but if we get carried away we become a bully.

And a nation filled of the disenfranchised and tormented isn't going to produce anything good.

I think the sunnis would agree. tampering with long standing ethnic divisions we barely understand isn't helping.

Oddly those same people are now being blown up by others claiming to be on their side. That'll work so well

shock and awe baby.
 
2005-05-09 10:52:56 AM
2005-05-09 10:38:03 AM bbcrackmonkey [TotalFark]
2003-03-19 04:26:56 AM bbcrackmonkey

Hehehe. Trying to break up a flamewar the day the Iraq War started.

"You know, one side of this entire fight will be proved right within one week. I think its safe to say that we can suspend arguments for awhile and let the losers eat crow afterwards."

I've gone back a time or two myself, and I'm glad I can say I've been consistent on this subject. I also get a kick out of the "over in a month" type comments I see on the other side. The same guys will say things like "no one said it wouldn't take time" now.
 
2005-05-09 10:54:18 AM
Splixx - man, that is a nice graphic. You do that?
 
2005-05-09 10:55:24 AM
What'd I miss? anuthing good?

//Hey...anybody got any new info on that chick that ran away from here old man...i just can't get enough of that story...she went to vegas you know...then to albuqueque...said she was kidnapped...c'mon...help a brotheruh out with new info!
 
2005-05-09 11:02:18 AM
Blade2567

oooooooo let's dish!

omg!
that dude she left..............

he's still. gonna. marry. her! holy fark my nipples are numb!!!!!
I cannot wait for the movie

/popping popcorn
//ooooooooooo its fun to watch rich people be naughty
 
2005-05-09 11:06:26 AM
 
2005-05-09 11:07:50 AM
BBcrackmonkey, I doubt you are still around, but I'm so proud of you, you even did more about it than me on one thing: the 100$ thing

although, if you don't mind, it's GENIUS and i'm gonna start NOW
 
2005-05-09 11:09:02 AM
Allow me to improve on perfection...

 
2005-05-09 11:10:06 AM
The "war" on Iraq is and was unconstitutional, as were the Korean and Vietnam wars.

The founding fathers were explicit in vesting the congress with war declaring powers precisely because they did not trust the executive to do so. They wished to avoid a Caesar-type leadership. Irony?
 
2005-05-09 11:18:40 AM
 
Displayed 50 of 657 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report