Link

Tom you obviously do not read things entirely before you speak, otherwise if you care to scroll to the top you will have seen it was one of the FIRST things I mentioned: Link

Mr Bush invaded a soverign nation under incorrect and flawed (read: lies) reasons.

Perhaps my personal favorite of the Bush haters. The reason for the Iraq invasion was to stop Saddam’s WMD program. Here’s a long list of democrats who agreed with the war for those reasons.

Iraq quotes

I can’t list all the quotes, there are so many of them, but here are a couple of my favorites:

“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Then there’s the quote by Hans Blix, certainly no friend of the war:

“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”

Notice the date of Blix’s comments. January 27, 2003, a mere two months before the U.S. invaded. So even while being surrounded by coalition forces, Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors.

He avoided the real enemy (osama been forgotten) and went ahead with his vanity war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or al quida.

Incorrect. As far back as 1998, which I believe was the Clinton administration, the U.S. had reason to believe Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together:

The Clinton View of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties

The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden’s financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country’s chemical weapons program.

Clinton first linked Al Qaeda to Saddam

In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

So, was Clinton lying too, or did Bush manipulate intelligence while he was still governor of Texas? Hmmmm?

Because Mr Bush’s crusade (his word) created tens of thousands of new terrorists, it seems misguided to think dems don’t understand the wider conflict (created by Mr Bush).

Oh exactly, tom! Because the terrorists liked us soooooo much before we went into Iraq. I could have sworn that 9/11 happened BEFORE we went into Iraq of Afghanistan, but maybe that’s my crazy right-wing loyalty coming into play. It was much like the Kamikaze recruitment almost doubled AFTER we declared war on Japan. Sometimes standing up to criminals and terrorists will create a frenzy. I would much rather them go to Iraq to get killed by our military than to be in the streets of our nation. Not to mention, if it wasn’t Iraq, it would have been something else; the Pope’s comments, the Danish cartoon, etc.

Since Mr Bush and the neocons screwed everything up in the middle east

Yeah, right tom, the middle east was perfect before we showed up. Are you reading from the Nancy Pelosi textbook of history?

dems want the Iraq people to govern themselves (it’s their country). Repubs seem to want continual war. Why is that?

Maybe because the Republicans want to make sure Iraq CAN govern itself so that we don’t have to come back in 5-10 years.

Here’s a few other articles you may want to browse:

‘Iraq Al-Qaeda’ welcomes US poll

Al Qaeda send message to democrats

Al Qaeda, Iran, Hugo Chavez, NY Times celebrate democart victory

Personally I would be a little concerned if all of the U.S. enemies were happy about an election result, but that’s just me. Probably that blind right-wing loyalty again.

This poll shows 41% of our country (including a significant number from ST’s own party)- by her own words – do not support our troops. Does she really believe this?

I find it interesting that no comment was made about 1 in 5 fellow Republican who also apparently are against out troops. What about the whopping 43% of Independents who have such ill-will toward our countrymen in uniform that we send to war?

This troop-funding question has become a political football. If congress voted against funding troops further, does this mean we’d just stop sending bullets and MRE’s? They’d have to find their own way home? Cmon folks, let’s have an honest discussion here. The only way Congress has a say in wartime matters is with the power of funding (or de-funding). If this president is going to use the WOT as general cover to do anything he pleases, and congress can do nothing but fund his ambitious plans for fear of not supporting the troops, then we effectively have a Monarchy. OK, that’s a bit overstated, but I think you get my point.

This poll shows 41% of our country according to ST (including a significant number from her own party), by her own words – do not support our troops. Does she really believe this?

BDS, plain and simple.

My words were, “Democrats want a humanitarian crisis which would result if we pulled our troops out.”

So class, what would result if we pulled our troops out? A humanitarian crisis. What is it if we do that – present, past or future? Future. Logic 101 and critical thinking 101 all rolled into one. Tom failed.

Tom asked, “Tell me then, in your opinion, what has he done for you?”

The question was whether Bush was ‘caring’ or not because you assert your god like knowledge that he isn’t. Doesn’t matter if he’s done anything for me to prove that you aren’t god. Kennedy, nor Carter, Bush 1, Reagan or Clinton did nothing for me. Do I claim that nonee of them were caring? No. Because you can’t make a claim of something you don’t know unless you are god or experienced their caring or non-caring.

My love of my life cared for me. I cared for her. Presidents make actions that you disagree with or not. You don’t know them well enough to know if they care for you or not.

You can either learn from what I’m saying or continue on wtih god like powers…. I tried to help. Signing out…

Hehheh… you know, you may have a point. How can anyone be qualified to consider that which does not exist?

And if we’re into subsribing motives it seems obvious they feel that way because they didn’t agree with Bush’s reasons for going to war.

That’s called spite. Rather than working to come up with a plan for victory the just say no to every plan. Bush doesn’t want more troops, they say we must have more. Bush wants more troops they say we must withdraw. Talk about the equivalent of a grade school argument

And since most democrats don’t think cutting and running will create additional terrorist attacks, to them, there’s no risk to behaving in a contrary manner.

Comment by Baklava

Sorry sir, you used the word humanitarian crisis. Your words sir. You may have referred to the future crisis, but I would rather stay on the reasons it has become (or will become) a crisis. We must lay blame for the situation we are in with the person responsible for invading Iraq. The reason I say Mr Bush doesn’t care for you is becuase of his actions and behavior. My opinions are developed by looking at what people do – not say. Mr Bush actions do not seem to be geared toward your benefit or mine. Tell me then, in your opinion, what has he done for you?

Because you know people’s motives and they never stated the motives as you put them.

Tom wrote, “Nothing in my post suggested anything of the sort.”

Yes. You wrote, “even the right side would start to wonder about the administrations motives” as if you know the administrations motives…

Tom wrote, “Why do you insist on ‘making stuff up’?

Tom wrote, “it is public and documented.” Yep. You even documented it further. See? It’s documented further now what the administrations motives are. Now. I can post what there motives are based on your research.

Tom as god wrote, “If you cared about your country” See Tom? You did it again. You know whether or not I ‘care’. You nailed me. I can’t refute you and say I do ‘care’ because you know better than I that I don’t right? Your condescension kicks you in the butt because you write things you can’t prove – unless you are god.

Tom wrote, “I also laughed when Baklava mentioned humanitarian crisis. ”

You laughed when we pulled out of Vietnam and the result was millions killed also? Short sited is what I think you are. If you do not think things could get worse as a result of a cut and run policy.

Tom wrote, “if you insist on calling this a crisis, the least you can do is admit HOW it became a crisis and WHOSE fault it is.”

I do not call this a crisis. In fact this war has the least amount of deaths per year than other wars. We had more die in Iwo Jima in a matter of weeks than what we have in Iraq. What I was referring to is what would result if Democrats are successful in removing our troops before the job is done. THen it would be a humanitarian crisis. Whose fault would that be Tom? The Democrats who forced the cut and run. Being shrill won’t change that.

Tom in god like fashion wrote, “Please don’t believe Mr Bush cares for you or about you – he doesn’t.”

Refer to facts not who ‘cares’ or doesn’t ‘care’ or what people’s motives are. It’ll help our conversation. Or we can go in circles attacking each other about which politician ‘cares’ or doesn’t ‘care’. Are we god here?

I hope you see what I’m trying to say. Or maybe I can part by saying – Why do you want to beat your wife? Because, two can play the knowing what’s in people’s minds game right????

Comment by Baklava

What a dumb thing to say about me. Me, God? Why would you say that? Nothing in my post suggested anything of the sort. Can’t you simply stick to the actual words in a post. Why do you insist on ‘making stuff up’? If you have learned anything about recent history, I will direct your attention to the PNAC crowd. They are followers of Strauss and it is well documented what their ‘motives’ are – yes dear, motives – of the group. I didn’t make it up – they posted the vision for all to see. If you cared about your country, you would want to know what these folks think. They include Pearl, addington, yoo, cheney, kristol, abu gonzalez, and many more. Again – I didn’t create the group. it is public and documented. That is the motive I was posting about. But again, you don’t want to discuss what is on someone’s mind. To you it is a playground of: did to – did not! My posts was pretty clear about what I was trying to convey. BTW, I wouldn’t put too much stock in a Faux News poll. Using that as a debate tactic will probably get you laughed out of the discussion.

I also laughed when Baklava mentioned humanitarian crisis. Yes sir, there is a crisis – started by the vanity war of George W Bush. If you insist on calling this a crisis, the least you can do is admit HOW it became a crisis and WHOSE fault it is. Please don’t believe Mr Bush cares for you or about you – he doesn’t. That is my point of view. Now if you have anything thoughtfull to say, please do.