Where Are The Democrats WMDs?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
On what Zap Branigan wrote:

My gosh Zap, you have my respect for looking at that situation in a non partisan manner.

Anytime our military is deployed I have always supported their mission regardless if it most logical choice at the time. They have never been sent on an evil mission in my lifetime although some missions should have been planned better.

Some people that post here don’t think deployment to Iraq was the most logical move. Thats cool. I have no problem with that.

What gets me irate is when those people start to say our soldiers are just as bad as the terrorists, compare Gitmo to Nazi death camps and all other crazy shit.

Clinton did some things with military deployments I think he could have done better. I understand his rationale for doing what he did even if I disgreed.

It’s nice to even see someone like you on the boards who isn’t trying to degrade Clinton at every turn while shining the light of omnipotence on Bush. I learned more from what you wrote in your last two posts than any of the other tripe in this thread.[/quote]

I second what ProfX said!

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It’s nice to even see someone like you on the boards who isn’t trying to degrade Clinton at every turn while shining the light of omnipotence on Bush. I learned more from what you wrote in your last two posts than any of the other tripe in this thread.[/quote]

Prof X, I am not afraid to take shots at Clinton when appropriate, or to show that many of the things Bush is often accused of have strong parallels to Clinton’s administration.

I am reserving my shots against some of our mistakes in the current struggle until later.

I do not think it is productive to criticize something while we are in the middle of it.

For example, now that the invasion of Afghanistan is well over I don’t mind saying that we blew the opportunity to get Bin Laden.

Our Special Forces combined with the Northern Alliance did a masterful job of routing the Taliban. The mistakes started to occur when the conventional military marginalized the Special Forces and worked more heavily with different tribesmen (I believe it was the Pashtun) during the siege of Tora Bora.

I don’t know how much of this was Bush’s and Rumsfield’s fault, but they certainly allowed us to try to change horses in mid-stream, which is always a mistake. This certainly hindered our hunt for Bin Laden.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, Carter was pre Taliban.

Technically that is correct but the Taliban came to power as a result of the defeat of Russia in Afganistan. Carter trained and armed Al Queda.

Bottom line…Carter’s fault.

Taliban was inconsequential during US involvement. The Taliban movement started rolling in the early 90’s.

Taliban was strongly supported by Pakistan.

You are missing the point again.

Saudi Arabia is very guilty of funding these bastards, but there is no US blessing.

BS. As long as the House of Saud provided and open spigot to the US from their oil fields we have been ‘hands off’. Our inattention shows our culpability.

Iran is providing funding and weapons for anti-government forces in Afghanistan. These forces are not necessarily Taliban, although they will ally with them when it suits their purposes.

We did the same thing Iran did for different reasons. At the end of the day we had a larger impact than Iran did unfortunately.

This is a horribly complicated situation. Ignoring it, as we had in the past will nor make it go away.

Generalizing and laying blame on one or two events is too simple to be accurate.

Your chums on the right do it all the time.

To each their own.

[/quote]

Marmadog, I appreciate the fact that you hate all politicians. It is a very wise stance.

Carter has done a lot of good things (Habitat for Humanity)and some very bad things (sucking up to Castro, Kim Il Jong etc) and he was incredibly weak on foreign policy.

I cannot lay any blame for the creation of the Taliban on Carter or Reagan.

The Russians certainly contributed to the creation of the Taliban when they invaded Afghanistan, but that is too simplistic.

The Taliban is a result of radical Islam, pure and simple. It will be a global struggle to marginalize radical Islam. It took an event like 9/11 to wake us up to the dangers of this movement.

As these assholes commit more and more terrorist acts the world will wake up and this movement will be either stamped out or will burn out.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadog, I appreciate the fact that you hate all politicians. It is a very wise stance.

Carter has done a lot of good things (Habitat for Humanity)and some very bad things (sucking up to Castro, Kim Il Jong etc) and he was incredibly weak on foreign policy.

I cannot lay any blame for the creation of the Taliban on Carter or Reagan.

The Russians certainly contributed to the creation of the Taliban when they invaded Afghanistan, but that is too simplistic.

The Taliban is a result of radical Islam, pure and simple. It will be a global struggle to marginalize radical Islam. It took an event like 9/11 to wake us up to the dangers of this movement.

As these assholes commit more and more terrorist acts the world will wake up and this movement will be either stamped out or will burn out.[/quote]

I understand where you are coming from. I agree that most politicans have done something good in their time in office.

Lately it seems that they are buried deep in K street’s pocket and damn the rest of us.

Owned!!!

the 16 words from the SOTU that were “debunked” are in fact true. You should read more. Maybe then you would understand this whole Wilson, Plame, Rove thing.

" another inquiry headed by Britain’s Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: “We conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”…but i guess the only british report we care about is the Downing Street Memo.

Silly Liberals

"Karl Rove, Whistleblower
July 13, 2005; Page A14

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove’s head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we’d say the White House political guru deserves a prize – perhaps the next iteration of the “Truth-Telling” award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real “whistleblower” in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He’s the one who warned Time’s Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson’s credibility. He’s the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn’t a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Media chants aside, there’s no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband’s selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he’d obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn’t even know Ms. Plame’s name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

On the “no underlying crime” point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times’s Judith Miller out of jail.

“While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear – at least on the public record – that a crime took place,” the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.

The same can’t be said for Mr. Wilson, who first “outed” himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous “16 words” on the subject in that year’s State of the Union address.

Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. “Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip,” said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn’t even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain’s Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: “We conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”

In short, Joe Wilson hadn’t told the truth about what he’d discovered in Africa, how he’d discovered it, what he’d told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

If there’s any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a “special counsel” probe. The Bush administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.

As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth."

From the Wall Street Journal

Biltrites’ back with a vengence. Nice to see you back down here, man.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
And can someone remind me why Clinton bombed Serbian cities?[/quote]

Perhaps because the Serbs were genocidal scum?

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
And can someone remind me why Clinton bombed Serbian cities?

Perhaps because the Serbs were genocidal scum?
[/quote]

And the Croats applied the lessons learned from the Serbs to the Muslims.

And the Muslims tried to get some payback from both of them.

Clinton picked the right target, but he was a couple years late. Not his fault, the UN needed time to fuck up the situation.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Elk,

Clinton’s career low in approval rating was 43% (June 1993).

Bush’s career low is 44% (July 2005).

So, roughly the same.

Clinton’s career high was 69% (January 1998).

Bush’s career high was 90% (September 2001, of course).

I got these from Gallup and ABCNews. Take from them what you will.

Yes, and clearly your info is false. From: USATODAY.com - President's approval ratings continue to sag
his ratings have hit as low as 42%. Why find false info?

That makes Elk’s statements correct…as much as that must pain some of you…and Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office!!![/quote]

All of these numbers are within the statistical margin of error, usally 3 percent. So Georgie and Willie are about the same in regards to all time lows.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, Rainjack, he may not hold his fingers to the wind, but when a president gets lower scores than the guy before who got his dick sucked (a fact that Republicans won’t let go of as if that was ALL Clinton did during his term in office), you would think he would start using that weathervane.[/quote]

Why are you so fascinated with bill clintions dick?

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
And can someone remind me why Clinton bombed Serbian cities?

Perhaps because the Serbs were genocidal scum?
[/quote]

And Sadaam only mass murdered his own people?

And what did we do to the Indians? Do you think we were worried that other countries were going to be policing the world?

And by the way, the Serbs (as well as Hungarians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Romanians, and others were overrun, pilaged, and raped by Islamic invaders every decade or so for 500 years even up until the 1900s.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
And can someone remind me why Clinton bombed Serbian cities?[/quote]

BC they were a threat to nation security.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
And can someone remind me why Clinton bombed Serbian cities?

Perhaps because the Serbs were genocidal scum?
[/quote]

Point is, Clinton chose that particular atrocity to battle because he wanted the Saudi’s to keep oil prices down and everyone knew that at the time. He had other reasons too, but that made the difference in that case.

[quote]swabby wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Also, Rainjack, he may not hold his fingers to the wind, but when a president gets lower scores than the guy before who got his dick sucked (a fact that Republicans won’t let go of as if that was ALL Clinton did during his term in office), you would think he would start using that weathervane.

Why are you so fascinated with bill clintions dick?[/quote]

That was so witty. I mean, seriously, how you took what I wrote, focused on the word “dick” and then stated your next post in a question regarding why I am so interested in a past president’s genitals. That was near brilliant.

I mean, that just came to you so quickly. “Why are you so fascinated with bill clintons dick?” Perfection. You didn’t even capitalize his name or use an apostrophe after “clinton”. That made it so “off the hip” as if it just came to you in a second. I must say, that was absolutely stunning.

I mean, could you do that again…you know, make a comment about his genetalia one more time? I am sure that it has not been done nearly enough. Good Gawd, that was smart. It just came to you just like that. Wow.

[quote]biltritewave wrote:

"Karl Rove, Whistleblower
July 13, 2005; Page A14

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove’s head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we’d say the White House political guru deserves a prize – perhaps the next iteration of the “Truth-Telling” award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real “whistleblower” in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He’s the one who warned Time’s Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson’s credibility. He’s the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn’t a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.
[/quote]

That’s a lie. Wilson reported early that there was no evidence to “Saddam is buying uranium in Africa”.

That’s exactly what he did. Deliberately and maliciously. Describes his actions perfectly.
[/quote]

But it appears Mr. Rove didn’t even know Ms. Plame’s name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.
[/quote]
That’s another lie.

More lies. That action was about the journalists right to not reveal his sources.

[quote]
“While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear – at least on the public record – that a crime took place,” the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.

The same can’t be said for Mr. Wilson, who first “outed” himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003.[/quote]

Another lie. He was outed when his wifes cover was blown by Novak the traitor.

Ok, time for the truth now. Did Saddam buy Uranium ore in Niger, or didn’t he? No spin here, just the facts.
Of course he didn’t. Wilson said he didn’t and got punished for it. His wifes cover was blown. Her contats were exposed. The company that provided her cover was exposed. The other agents that were covered by the same company were exposed. Their contats were exposed.

Did Saddam buy Uranium ore in Niger or didn’t he?

How about Bush? He was discredited by the facts. Not by rumours, not by hearsay. Not by spin, but by cold facts. No WMD. No threat of a mushroom cloud. No link with Al Quada. No link with the 9/11 attacks. You wanna see discredited? Just take a look at Bush and you see discredited.

[quote]
If there’s any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a “special counsel” probe. The Bush administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.[/quote]

Gee, unguided missile…
Makes one think about 1 stained dress, doesn’t it.
No underlying crime? In your dreams boy, in your dreams.

[quote]
As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth."

From the Wall Street Journal[/quote]

The truth? The truth is there are no wmd, no threat of a mushroom cloud. No link to Al Quada, no link to the 9/11.

You want to truth? You can’t handle the truth!

The truth is Novak ratted out a CIA undercover agent. Under the patriot act he should be arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. That’s the truth.

I told you you wouldn’t be able to handle it.

Want some more truth? Just call and I’ll give you another dose.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
And can someone remind me why Clinton bombed Serbian cities?

Perhaps because the Serbs were genocidal scum?

Point is, Clinton chose that particular atrocity to battle because he wanted the Saudi’s to keep oil prices down and everyone knew that at the time. He had other reasons too, but that made the difference in that case.[/quote]

How cynical of you. I understand your point, but I don’t wholly buy into it.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

The truth? The truth is there are no wmd, no threat of a mushroom cloud. No link to Al Quada, no link to the 9/11.

You want to truth? You can’t handle the truth!

I told you you wouldn’t be able to handle it.

Want some more truth? Just call and I’ll give you another dose.[/quote]

This is incorrect, Saddam had no link to the planning of 9/11 but he had links to al-Qaeda going back at least to the late 1990’s. ABC did a story on it in 1999.

Saddam harbored al-Qaeda agents in Baghdad prior to our invasion. Al-Zarqawi is the obvious one. In the days before invasion Saddam helped al-Zarqawi out of Baghdad and armed him and his men.

It is OK to think the war was a wrong idea. It is not cool to spread misinformation to back up your views.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Ok, time for the truth now. Did Saddam buy Uranium ore in Niger, or didn’t he? No spin here, just the facts.
[/quote]

Wreckless, you’re so full of crap your eyes stink. The claim was that Saddam TRIED to buy Uranium from Niger. A FACT that was supported by the Butler report.

There’s you truth!!!

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Ok, time for the truth now. Did Saddam buy Uranium ore in Niger, or didn’t he? No spin here, just the facts.

Wreckless, you’re so full of crap your eyes stink. The claim was that Saddam TRIED to buy Uranium from Niger. A FACT that was supported by the Butler report.

There’s you truth!!!
[/quote]

Thank you. Its good to know the you all arent worthless drones of liberal bullshit like Wreckless is.

And novak didnt out anybody. clearly you havent been following the story recently as of late, but he found her name in the Whos Who of washington phone book.

she was also not undercover so there is no crime.

learn to read, learn the law, then learn how to think and then come back and try and make a bit of sense mmmmm kay.

Thanks,
me