[quote]Professor X wrote:
I asked you a question. You didn’t answer. I didn’t claim that you thought anything. I asked if you did and the represented my doubts. Why not simply answer the question? Why the hostility? I’m crushed.[/quote]
No Sir -
You asked a question, then answered it for me. There is a difference.
I even said that the republicans backed Clinton all the way wrt Iraq - that is my answer. Yes we did support the president. We would have supported a war. I supported finishing the job back in 1991. I have sad that before.
Is there something confusing you about the truth? Wait - I know…first it has to be filtered through the professor’s ABB glasses and then spun to fit your biases.
Come on, don’t die, there’s always hillary in 2008!!!
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!
JeffR[/quote]
This is directly to RainJack: what do you think of this response to the article that RSU posted? Be totally honest with me and yourself: Compare this response to the article that RSU posted to the responses JeffR received to the article he posted. Who’s actting like a third grader here (And by “who” I’m not trying to label an entire political party, I’m talking about individuals)? Seriously. Take off your blinders please.
Do us a favor and add something - anything - productive to the conversation.
JTF keeps spouting silly invectives that anyone who has a realistic grasp of the history of it can explain away.
We all know about OBL’s relationship with the CIA - and the argument that we ‘created’ OBL makes about as much sense as we ‘created’ the Soviet Union in WWII by allying with them to defeat the Nazis. Shrill repetition does not make a weak argument any better.
As for the relationship with the Saudis - I don’t like it, but Bush has done more to chill that relationship than anyone has since the nexus between Saudi Arabia and the US began mid-century (yes, the relationship goes back roughly 60 years to every President since FDR).
Moreover, as a cheap supplier of our oil, what would the consequences of a radical rejection of SA be? Oil recession? Who knows for sure, but for one thing I am certain - if that occurred, whiney Leftists would be screeching to the high heavens over Bush starting a recession and creating unemployment. After all, the Left doesn’t have realistic alternative solutions, just pouting and griping.
Again, the choice here is between something bad and something worse - not an easy utopian no-brainer. As such, Leftists aren’t equipped to handle such decisions, and in the instant case, I can’t figure out which is worse: a conspiratorial ankle-biter or his sycophantic cheerleader.[/quote]
Great points thunder. My only question is, why the insults? Why is what JTF posted “idiocy”? Why insult Elk? Your post, as usual, is insightful and definitely adds to the discussion at hand, but the insults really do you a disservice.
Moriarity thinks we are happy that bin laden is free.
I’ve made it abundantly clear that I wish he had been bagged.
Apparently, that isn’t enough.
He has a thought in his brain and he can’t let it go.
Imagine a stiff walking Moriarity mumbling, “Must repeat. Must repeat. Must repeat. Must not understand plain English. Must not understand plain English.”
JeffR
P.S. Even JTF, ILOVEGEORGWBUSH1 (rsu), and POX would probably agree that I speak clearly and concisely (with an abudance of exclamation points!!!)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You desparately cling to the notion that ‘related to 9/11’ means thinking that Saddam Hussein was part of the plot. Nope. There are quite a few that believe he was involved, even if tangentially, but most people who relate the two are seeing it in a broader context.[/quote]
Are you sure about that? What of the polls I saw where almost half of people asked thought that Hussein was DIRECTLY involved with 9/11? Show me some data.
I also saw numerous people on this board (everywhere really), that stated they supported the war in Iraq because they wanted revenge on the people that did 9/11, and because they wanted to fight the terrorists on their soil. That’s not why we went to Iraq though, right? We went to Iraq to establish a favorable strategic position and to promote democracy in the region, thereby eliminating the kind of eco-political environment that fosters terrorist activity, right?
“This is directly to RainJack: what do you think of this response to the article that RSU posted? Be totally honest with me and yourself: Compare this response to the article that RSU posted to the responses JeffR received to the article he posted. Who’s actting like a third grader here (And by “who” I’m not trying to label an entire political party, I’m talking about individuals)? Seriously. Take off your blinders please.”
Please lighten up!!! RSU and I go way back. We are just bantering. I believe he takes it that way. True, we have had our run-ins in the past. However, it’s in good fun!!!
RSU, I’d appreciate you backing me up on this one.
By the way, moriarity, please cease the holier than thou attitude immediately.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
JThis is directly to RainJack: what do you think of this response to the article that RSU posted? Be totally honest with me and yourself: Compare this response to the article that RSU posted to the responses JeffR received to the article he posted. Who’s actting like a third grader here (And by “who” I’m not trying to label an entire political party, I’m talking about individuals)? Seriously. Take off your blinders please.[/quote]
You want to talk about eeeeevvviiiilll corruption? Were talking about 100mill ‘missing’. How much money has been spent in Iraq thus far? A drop in the bucket, my friend.
I’m not excusing anyone. If they stole, or otherwise criminally mismanaged funds - they should fry.
But while were on the subject of corruption - and you seem to be wearing your “Team ABB” t-shirt - any comment on the $26BILLION - that’s billion with a ‘B’- still unaccounted for in the OFF program?
Just wondering if your blinders are on as tight as you accuse mine of being.
Moriarity thinks we are happy that bin laden is free.
I’ve made it abundantly clear that I wish he had been bagged.
Apparently, that isn’t enough.
He has a thought in his brain and he can’t let it go.
Imagine a stiff walking Moriarity mumbling, “Must repeat. Must repeat. Must repeat. Must not understand plain English. Must not understand plain English.”
JeffR
P.S. Even JTF, ILOVEGEORGWBUSH1 (rsu), and POX would probably agree that I speak clearly and concisely (with an abudance of exclamation points!!!)[/quote]
Not republicans. Just you. You’re glad he’s free, and you admitted it already.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You want to talk about eeeeevvviiiilll corruption? Were talking about 100mill ‘missing’. How much money has been spent in Iraq thus far? A drop in the bucket, my friend.
[/quote]
I just wanted to get your take on JeffR’s response, that’s all. I think his responses are ‘typically’ more juvenile that 100meters responses. I was just curious why you only call people out on one side of the fence.
I didn’t know I owned a “Team ABB” shirt or that I seemed to be wearing it. Can you show me what I said in this thread that makes you believe I’m wearing said shirt, or is this another case of you calling people “ABB” based on their user names and not on their posts again?
Since you asked what my take on the OFF program was, I think international sanctions are usually ineffective and I thought that OFF was a sham. I was in favor of military action, as opposed to sanctions, against Hussein’s regime in the 90s. Why do you ask? What have I ever said that makes you believe I thought OFF was effective?
It’s possible I have blinders on, but I am not aware of it if so. Enlighten me. Help me remove them.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
I sort of resent being called an SS Officer by Senor Elk, who lectured me just the other day about how we needed to show respect for each other here.
[/quote]
There you go again Joe, fishing for something to get emotional over. Now judging from the dirt you can sling (one only need reference Powda’s threads) you would think you were a little tougher then that. Predictable you are. You and Veg are getting more liberal and whiney by the minute!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Was it propaganda when Clinton said the exact same things?
[/quote]
I have my suspicions that it was propaganda. I wonder if Clinton trumped up the same bullshit evidence that W did, knowing full well it was flimsy, whenever it was politically favorable. Maybe that’s why he never took military action, because he knew the data wasn’t reliable.
I’d like to re-examine the context in which Clinton made statements about Hussein’s WMD capabilities.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
I have my suspicions that it was propaganda. I wonder if Clinton trumped up the same bullshit evidence that W did, knowing full well it was flimsy, whenever it was politically favorable. Maybe that’s why he never took military action, because he knew the data wasn’t reliable.
I’d like to re-examine the context in which Clinton made statements about Hussein’s WMD capabilities.
[/quote]
While your at it, you might need to re-examine the satements made by the congressmen wrt Iraq during that time period as well.
Shoot - go ahead and take a good look at UN Res 1441.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
I sort of resent being called an SS Officer by Senor Elk, who lectured me just the other day about how we needed to show respect for each other here.
There you go again Joe, fishing for something to get emotional over. Now judging from the dirt you can sling (one only need reference Powda’s threads) you would think you were a little tougher then that. Predictable you are. You and Veg are getting more liberal and whiney by the minute![/quote]
Not emotional and certainly not whining, just idly musing why I have to show respect but you can call people names.
It’s an interesting double standard.
Please stop accusing me of trying to get emotional.
And powda likes it. He actually PM’s me and tells me of some of his exploits…
BTW, have you seen the new Star Wars? Cause you’re into Yoda-speak already, bro!
In all seriousness, though, Elk–why can you say shit about me or Veg…but we can’t return the favor?
I don’t care that much, but it’s an interesting window into the soul of liberal hypocrisy.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
I have my suspicions that it was propaganda. I wonder if Clinton trumped up the same bullshit evidence that W did, knowing full well it was flimsy, whenever it was politically favorable. Maybe that’s why he never took military action, because he knew the data wasn’t reliable.
I’d like to re-examine the context in which Clinton made statements about Hussein’s WMD capabilities.
While your at it, you might need to re-examine the satements made by the congressmen wrt Iraq during that time period as well.
Shoot - go ahead and take a good look at UN Res 1441.[/quote]
Of course Rainjack knows there is no comparison to Cinton’s rhetoric and bush’s. Clinton was presented intel with caveats, Bush–no caveats, “there is no doubt”, “we know where they are”, etc. It’s ok to be dead wrong Rainjack, and Bush and co. was dead wrong in every regard. Still its possible to right a wrong and perhaps (hopefully) Bush will do exactly that if Iraq can succeed.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Of course Rainjack knows there is no comparison to Cinton’s rhetoric and bush’s. Clinton was presented intel with caveats, Bush–no caveats, “there is no doubt”, “we know where they are”, etc. It’s ok to be dead wrong Rainjack, and Bush and co. was dead wrong in every regard. Still its possible to right a wrong and perhaps (hopefully) Bush will do exactly that if Iraq can succeed.[/quote]
This - coming from a guy with such selective memory that he can’t even recall Clinton talking about Soc Sec going broke.
List Clinton’s caveats. Show me the caveats in UN Res. 1441. Show me the caveats in Kennedy’s speeches circa 1998. Shoew me the caveats in Al Gores rhetoric, or John Kerry, or Sheets Byrd. I don’t think there is any such caveat - only inaction. But that’s the MO of the left. Talk is cheap, and evidently forgettable.
Get over this silly garbage. Presidents don’t fight on the ground and acting like Bush is doing something cowardly be not strapping on a rucksack and charging a hill is embarassing.
It doesn’t work that way, it never has, and we would never want it to work that way. Be serious.