Ok, lumpy.
Didn’t want to retype the obvious yesterday. Since I can’t have you feeling good about yourself, here goes:
“Oh gosh. Inevitable? Germany? There goes credibility again.”
This is why your party doesn’t deserve any power until it gets it’s shit together.
saddam: attack neighbors, wmd, murdering his own people by the thousands, brutual “police” forces, on and on and on. Surprise: hitler did exactly the same.
“And it took a war to stop this? Or would no-fly zones been a more effective means. Answer-no:fly zones.”
Oh, my GOD lumpy!!! Did you seek help? Everyone raise their hand who thinks the no fly zones would have stopped saddam from reconstituting his weapons? Not to mention the fact that the scumbag was targeting our planes nearly daily. You live in a fairy land.
“Is this seriously your logic? Couldn’t you have used the same reasoning with democracy in Iraq?”
No. We’d given the Iraqi’s from 1991 on. We’d encouraged and funded resistance groups. It WAS NOT WORKING. Wouldn’t have worked. saddam was too brutual and effective in removing resistance. Jesus, you are dense.
“Jeff,our intel was “Dead Wrong”,”
On STOCKPILES. Not WMD. Not weapons systems.
“Duelfer said no WMD’s for at least 10 years.”
Actually, he said no mass production of WMD in that time period. What he said was money being poured into the systems the research from approximately 1995 on. Much more from 1998 on. With the end of sanctions in sight, it emboldened him. Hands over eyes!!! Hear no evil, see no evil!!!
“Saddam had no wmds since the first Gulf War. Just accept it. Again, a total credibility loss. P.S. N. Korea HAS wmd, we haven’t invaded. Why?”
In 1991, the violence and civil war in Chad had spread into the Darfur region of the Sudan. WHERE WERE WE? MY GOD, no attacking anyone unless we ATTACK EVERYONE AND SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM AT ONCE!!!
Again, on of the most ridiculous positions pushed by your party. God knows, there’s a lot to choose from.
“A created front line. Which would be the issue. How does creating a new frontline on terror, a new training ground for terrorists, further the war on terror? It doesn’t.”
Please type this sentence: al qaeda wasn’t active in Iraq prior to 2003. Then type this sentence: saddam wasn’t harboring and supporting a wide range of terrorists.
If you can’t type those exact sentences, then your premise is completely wrong.
“The fake rationale regarding terror was to prevent a breeding ground for terror. We’ve now created one. So what about deterrance?”
People who are much more knowledgable about the situation are pointing out that the majority of the insurgency are foreign fighters. Iraq is front and center of the War on terror. Or are you going to contend that the majority of the fanatics who blow themselves up ARE created by the Iraqi invasion? Come on lumpy, give it to me!!! Please.
“New training ground for terrorists,”
Note: Most of the insurgency are foreign. The proportion of attacks on the Iraqi’s are increasing. This has become a power grab for the future of Iraq. You are a piece of shit if can’t understand what is at stake. They are trying to forge a fundamentalist Islamic state. This must not happen.
“100’s of americans killed by terrorists there, terrorism way up around the world”
We’ve been over this ground before. The same State Department memos are also saying that terrorism was at an all time low in 2004.
Oh, lumpy, I’m glad you decided to call them terrorists instead of “insurgents” as your beloved cnn and npr likes to do.
“-and those reports don’t even include Iraq–so it certainly isn’t helping the terror problem (if your goal is reducing terrorism that is—don’t know what the admin’s goals are…)”
Another one of my favorite lib smoke and mirrors line. There must be some “devious” explanation. Why? NIXON. Unless you are a democrat, everything MUST be viewed with extreme suspicion.
What are the “real” goals, lumpy? Your favorite used to be oil.
Well, if it is, they are doing one shitty job of it.
“Libya would be the result of this thing called diplomacy…”
Why didn’t “diplomacy” work during clinton’s eight years? Plain and simple, there was no “speak softly and carry a big stick” in action.
You make me laugh. Funny how Libya gave up their WMD in the hundred of thousands directly after the invasion of Iraq. Coincidence? PLEASE.
“Actually the war in Iraq as it relates to terror is like a patient having brain cancer, and as the doctor you decide to remove their hand. (They’re totally unrelated see?) In your example you should have replaced ruptured gall bladder with black head or hangnail, in order to be more…honest.”
See my above challenge. Please type those exact sentence. No liberal dodging. Just type them in see what happens. If you can’t categorically prove my wrong, then your whole premise is wrong. Good luck.
“We still haven’t invaded North Korea have we?”
You wouldn’t support that either. Nor would you support attacking Iran, defending Taiwan, or putting more troops on the ground. No one is fooled by your little “traps.”
It all boils down to your lack of fundamental geopolitical understanding. Not to mention your total inability to discern patterns. Throw on a lack of historical perspective and WHAM: You lose control of the entire Federal Government.
“Actually ‘war president’ most likely is Bush’s leading rationale (his official biographer certainly got that feeling)–though not his admin’s–see PNAC.”
Oh, he had that “feeling?” Jesus, lumpy. That is so damn lame. Some people have a “feeling” that they are Jesus Christ. Some “feel” that they can fly.
I’m not going to clean up the mess.
“intel fixed around policy” Or encourage sen. roberts to hold the committee that he promised to investigate the iraqi intel? You do want to know right? So why no committee, no urgency, no desire to investigate? Wierd."
lumpy, maybe because there isn’t one damn bit of proof. Trust me, if there was such a proponderence of evidence, (or even reasonable evidence), leave 'em dead ted, nancy “I hate rich people” pelosi, barbara “I don’t wash my hair” boxer, john “fuck me gently” kerry, would be all over this.
“This was debunked already wasn’t it?”
HOW CAN YOU DEBUNK HIS EXACT WORDS? Jesus.
“Liberating wasn’t a reason for invading Iraq,”
Do I have to retype the 30 or 40 speeches he gave stating JUST THAT?
“perhaps a benefit—but wmd, fake al-queda ties were.”
Was that what I think it was? Just to be sure, in your next post please type the challenge sentences. I don’t want any misinterpretation.
“I mean the Iraqi people needed liberating when Bush ran in 2000 on no nation building, no world’s police force, right Jeff?”
9/11 changed everyone’s thinking (except yours, mister September 10th, 2001). Bush says it changed his.
“Your speech only confirmed this–as pointed out on your wierd “debunked myself again” thread.”
Just flat out wrong. Just ask, and I’d be happy to repost his speeches.
“Absolutely true. See speech and speeches and countless appearances for the urgency in attacking Iraq.”
See above.
“9/11 commish says: No credible evidence.”
Cherry-picking little turd. No credible evidence of involvment with 9/11.
Ask the King of Jordan about zarqawi.
“Cheney knew he was lying when he talked about al-queda connections ( trip to prague) but said it anyway.”
Really. I didn’t know you were Cheney. Would you please get those oil prices down Mr Ex-President of Halliburton!!!???
“Doesn’t this bother you? When intel says don’t say this—Why would they say things anyway? The aluminum tubes, yellowcake, prague meeting, biolabs, etc…we know now all were in doubt by intel, but none of this doubt was relayed to the public. Alarming no?”
Everything in intel is in doubt all the time. Would you like me to repost what YOUR PARTY thought about the same intel?
I’d be happy to.
“It’s strange because Shrub said:
?We’re going to hunt them down one at a time?it doesn’t matter where they hide…”
He does say what he means and means what he says right? A real straight shooter. (hilarious)."
Ok, lumpy. What the hell does that paragraph mean?
“Mr. Goss’s agency has also said Iraq is worse than afghanistan and will be a breeding ground for terror for years to come. Wonderful. Also again:
Bush: Hunt them down, no matter where they hide.”
There are terrorists in Iraq. Care to argue that they aren’t being hunted down?
“Terror way up.”
Oops. See above.
“New training ground for terrorist for years to come.”
Hopefully not. Instead of badmouthing the effort maybe you should send money. At least, send some damn hope.
“Insurgency could last what, 15 years!”
Rummy said up to 12. Maybe he has learned to be pessimistic in the press. You dinks cherry-pick his words to the nth degree. What about the things he was right on about? Don’t see you typing any of those.
“Billions of dollars being spent Billions just lost!) 100’s of troops dying. 1000’s of troops maimed, Osama still giving us the middle finger, and on and on and on…”
Give up lumpy. Run and hide. Click your heels together, “I wish we had bill clinton…” “I wish it was September 10th, 2001”
News flash: It’s a different world. Rules have changed. Needs have changed. If you don’t start understanding it, you’ll keep on losing.
“America feels misled about the war, loves the troops, doesn’t trust the president,”
Really? W. won on just this issue by 3,500,000 votes.
“and military leaders in Iraq confirm media reports and Rummy just said 15 year insurgency (i.e. Cheney is a liar). It’s a damn shame the troops don’t have an honest competent military leader in the whitehouse.”
I’m glad the troops voted overwhelmingly for W’s reelection. They know the truth FAR better than you. But, don’t worry, I hear hillary is the answer to all your ills!!!
In summary, lumpy, when I choose to stop a conversation, it’s because I don’t have the time to refute all of your silliness. IT IS NOT because you “debunked” anything.
Oh, don’t think I didn’t notice the things you “chose” not to respond to in my original post.
Have a wonderful Fourth of July.
By the way, America is right.
JeffR