Shoot Sasquatch, this is my post in it’s entirety. Tell me what in there is an attack as you’ve claimed…
You claim it is okay to question me, which it certainly is, but at the same time surely it is okay to question you, or disagree with your opinion?
The following is my entire post, don’t go claiming I’m twisting words or anything silly like that. What in the following is an “attack”?
Point it out to me. I really want to know.
[quote]So you say. Perhaps others would look at the document and question people to determine if something was actually amiss.
The document is indeed “evidence”, the question is whether or not there is more evidence. Whether or not there are people who are aware of the facts, and if the document were to be correct, were willing to speak to those facts.
Perhaps not. Perhaps so. I’d be surprised if the document was the only thing to come out of an attempt at impeachment.
Be careful though, I’m not trying to say the Bush administration is guilty. Unlike yourself, I’m not trying to dismiss this either. I’m going to wait for more, and if it is there, consider it.
And I responded accordingly vroom. No mention of attack at this point. in your next post though you began your descent. You called me priceless and ridiculed my post.
listen I don’t have to go over every post. They are there to evaluate should you or anyone else want to look.
All I’ve done is respond to your posts.
I asked you to respond to my initial post and you choose to go back and bring up the same old crap. Either take issue with my opinion or move on. Your motivation is clear, you feel the need to validate your name calling and non-responses.
Just respond to the memo in question–please. If you have no opinion–fine. We’ll move along.
There is nothing to discuss at this point. Not until Monday anyway, when the world will get to find out what happens. Especially since you are not willing to discuss anything except this document itself.
And I must say, thank goodness the thread is indeed visible for all to see…
Oh by the way, you never did answer whether or not I had actually linked to the document in question. After spending multiple posts accusing me of not reading it, you really should either admit it is and that I have read it or simply point me to the right place.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Name calling? Not in this thread.
There is nothing to discuss at this point. Not until Monday anyway, when the world will get to find out what happens. Especially since you are not willing to discuss anything except this document itself.
And I must say, thank goodness the thread is indeed visible for all to see…
Oh by the way, you never did answer whether or not I had actually linked to the document in question. After spending multiple posts accusing me of not reading it, you really should either admit it is and that I have read it or simply point me to the right place.[/quote]
You had the correct link
I will discuss anything relevant to the post. The link doesn’t equal reading the document. Your unwillingness to discuss the memo leads me to believe it goes unread. If you read it then discuss anything pertinent brought up in said memo that can be attributed to anyone except ‘unnamed source.’ I stand by my assertion that the document is baseless and the publication that ran it is suspect. I guess Monday we’ll know.
Okay, thanks for the repeated insult to my character concerning not reading the damned thing. Anyway…
Is it worth quoting from the document itself, or is the whole document simply worthless in your eyes? You are the one asking for discussion of contents right?
Many people will obviously read this to mean that the administration was cherry picking intelligence to support a conclusion they already had. I know you won’t, that is your choice.
This part can basically be read the same way…
It is easy to read this as stating that the decision had been made and that there was a scramble to find a way to justify it somehow. Again, I’m not trying to say whether or not this is actually the case, but what some will see in the document.
If the predetermined course of action interpretation were correct, then there are many people in the US and the UK who are very aware of this. So, at some point it would certainly leak. You could even argue that the fact it hasn’t leaked makes it unlikely.
Anyway, you can certainly disagree that those sections should be read that way, but that doesn’t change the fact that they will be. Don’t blame me for it or attack me as if I’m inventing it myself, it is simply the topic of discussion.
[quote]Montrosefan wrote:
When I look at the average democrat voter all I can think of is “looser”. They can spell their name exactly the way Clinton does: B oy I L ove L oosing-election after election!
No one put it better than the King of Bodybuilding himself…“why would I want to work with loosers?”
Montrosefan[/quote]
Boy you sure do make Ken Kaniff look like a genius! Democrat voter? It’s Democratic voter. Looser? Please explain to me what a “looser” is because I don’t know. Clinton did not lose election after election, duh!
When i look at the average bush-voter i wonder why civilization doesnt collapse. I couldn’t have said it any better and after reading your post Montrose you have done your Republican party a great service. Keep up the intelligent posts Montrose!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This entire argument is stupid. For anyone to have any other opinion than “let’s wait and see” at this point would mean your bias has taken over all common sense. Unless one of you here understands the strategy involved along with all possible evidence or why Kerry would even be the one to promote this over all others, everyone eluding to some sort of conclusion at this point is simply filling up internet space.
[/quote]
If Kerry actually plans to do this Tuesday - or whenever - it would appear that your advice will go ignored.
I agree - let’s wait and see. But the Dems have not really displayed much ‘come in out of the rain’ wsense lately.
[quote]doogie wrote:
I did my time in the reserves. I admit I never saw even a hint of action, but when I signed up I knew there was a chance I would.
I respect our men and women in uniform enough to assume they all knew the risk they were taking when they signed on the line. I don’t act as if they are victims of anything. I don’t look down on them and think they were too uneducated to know what they were volunteering for.
I think each and every American that has died in Iraq has given their life to protect us. I do believe that terrorists are so pre-occupied in Iraq that we are safer here. I do believe that a free and democratic Iraq will be a catalyst to a free middle-East that will breed fewer and fewer terrorists in the years to come. I do believe that Sadam would have aided anyone who was hoping to do us harm.
I don’t look at the money we have spent on the war to decide whether or not it was morally right. [/quote]
So… what are you saying about the memo? The possible impeachement?
What if you and your brothers in the reserves had been sent over there? You seem to have no problem with that, but would you if the reason was a lie? A deliberate fabrication?
[quote]Montrosefan wrote:
When I look at the average democrat voter all I can think of is “looser”. They can spell their name exactly the way Clinton does: B oy I L ove L oosing-election after election!
No one put it better than the King of Bodybuilding himself…“why would I want to work with loosers?”
Montrosefan[/quote]
The average democrat voter can probably spell ‘loser’, unlike you. Who’s the loser? Oh, sorry Repub, ‘looser’. Learn to spell, dweeb.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
But if impeachment occurred, as it did during Clinton’s era, how could that be bad for the democrats? It’s not like impeaching Clinton hurt the republicans is it?
If Bush goes, Cheney takes over. If Cheney goes too, then Dennis Hassert takes over. No matter what happens, a republican will be in office.
But that is a worst case scenario. The odds of anything coming from Kerrry’s supposed launching of impeachment proceedings is slim and none.
The only thing that can come of this is further implosion of the Dem party. They have been losing steadily since 1994, and this is just another attempt to take back some of the poweer that the voters have been taking from them and giving to the republicans for the last 11 years. [/quote]
If Bush goes, and Cheney is president, it will, in the long term, be good for the Democrats. Why? Because Cheney has all the personality of Darth Vader. And if he ran for president afterwards he would never get elected. A president has to have some charisma and human qualities. You might as well put Tom Delay up as a candidate as Cheney.
I doubt this memo will lead to Bush’s impeachement, however. What does it say that people do not already know? That facts were ‘fixed’ to fabricate reasons to invade Iraq? Some of us have known this for two or more years now.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I doubt this memo will lead to Bush’s impeachement, however. What does it say that people do not already know? That facts were ‘fixed’ to fabricate reasons to invade Iraq? Some of us have known this for two or more years now.
[/quote]
If the facts were ‘fixed’ - then the ‘fix’ was in long before G-Dub ran for President. The selective memory of the Left will cost them even more seats next election.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Montrosefan wrote:
When I look at the average democrat voter all I can think of is “looser”. They can spell their name exactly the way Clinton does: B oy I L ove L oosing-election after election!
No one put it better than the King of Bodybuilding himself…“why would I want to work with loosers?”
Montrosefan
The average democrat voter can probably spell ‘loser’, unlike you. Who’s the loser? Oh, sorry Repub, ‘looser’. Learn to spell, dweeb.[/quote]
I think there are plenty of spelling errors to go around. I wouldn’t judge the man so harshly.
You don’t like his politics, fine. However, let’s give everyone a break around here when it comes to spelling and grammar.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
I doubt this memo will lead to Bush’s impeachement, however. What does it say that people do not already know? That facts were ‘fixed’ to fabricate reasons to invade Iraq? Some of us have known this for two or more years now.
If the facts were ‘fixed’ - then the ‘fix’ was in long before G-Dub ran for President. The selective memory of the Left will cost them even more seats next election.[/quote]
You can’t convince the Bush haters that this is an unwise strategy. They have some sort of hope that they carry deep with in that makes them want to believe that the entire country will somehow learn to hate Bush as much as they do.
I hope Kerry does in fact push an impeachment. At least they will have one specific act they can look back on and say “we really blew it right there!”
“I doubt this memo will lead to Bush’s impeachement, however. What does it say that people do not already know? That facts were ‘fixed’ to fabricate reasons to invade Iraq? Some of us have known this for two or more years now.”
What’s the matter with you lately?
Seriously, you seem like you are back to your pre-election anger.
Did you read my last post on this thread?
Read the whole thing. It’s going to be hard to convince anyone that the information was fabricated or tampered with. Unless, of course, you are ready to indicte all the top leadership of your precious democrats. Throw in most of the world’s intelligence community agreeing with our assessment, and you have no case.
So shitcan the “fixed intelligence” crap.
Again, read my last post. The whole thing, please.
You might want to think about having some sex. You seem overly tense.
I think the memo is quite clear about what it says. All kerry can possibly do at this point is call an investigation to see if the allegations are true. If they prove false I do not see how that hurts the democrats any more than the allegation of weapons of mass distruction hurt president bush.
[quote]The Red1 wrote:
I think the memo is quite clear about what it says. All kerry can possibly do at this point is call an investigation to see if the allegations are true. If they prove false I do not see how that hurts the democrats any more than the allegation of weapons of mass distruction hurt president bush. [/quote]
don’t forget that Bush is not the only one to say “WMD”. The UN did, Clinton did, every “D” Senator who’s now attacking Bush for it signed onto it…
in that case they are all wrong. Being wrong and lying are two different things. This is about whether or not he lied. Not whether or not he was wrong.