To the Bush supporters.

Bandit you go on about "all the evidence that was brought to Bush", totally ignoring the long and repeatedly revealed fact that any evidence "which did not coincide with the neo-con ideology of what MUST be the case" (regardless of what truly was or is the case) was simply rejected out of hand.

This administration has had an agenda (the PNAC agenda) according to which and ONLY according to which its leading decisionmaking members (all restored to power from their unexpected hiatus for 8 long years) have been hungering to act. Thus whatever didnt square with what their agenda required to be so (and for the public to believe was so) was quashed (or when ultimately revealed as false, responded to with character smear campaigns upon those who dared to expose the reality behind closed doors like Clarke and O'Neill).

Its time to stop playing ideological advocate and show some true concern for the rampant and WILLFULL (not mistaken or accidental) corruption, abuse of power and refusal to be held accountable - as per their sworn oath of office -which has characterised this admin since it took power.

 

The whole thing about Kerry supporting Bush and changing his mind is all Bush's propaganda to make him look bad.

If you'll actually use facts instead of your rants, we might be able to get somewhere. Obviously someone missed the debates.

He said he agreed with it, but more political action should have been taken, and more evidence should have been gathered before Bush ran headlong into Iraq. No one expected that he was going to go ahead and ignore everything he told congress and just go to war.

Just because I love you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6146353/
There's the debates transcript.

 

people people ...we all have the freedom to belive what we want to believe why must we hate those who think differently than us...let us peacefully try to change their minds...not critisize. peace peace love love

 

I totally see that. I guess if attacking Iraq was the wrong thing to do, then we need to apologize to Adolf Hitler.

Also, let us not forget that when we attacked Iraq, we were going by the intelligence we had then, not the intelligence we have now. And I do believe the WMDs have yet to be found.

One more thing that should be considered is that Jon Kerry voted FOR the war. THEN he said that even knowing what he knows now, he STILL would have gone to war. There's no denying this. He's a flip-flopper

I love your sig, by the way It's way too groovy!

 

Thank you Moonjava. Maybe next time you can read the previous posts before you go spouting off.

But you seem to have missed it. So once again:

Genocide is wrong. But that dosnt mean we can go around to every country we dont agree with and wage war. We lack manpower and funding. Comparing Iraq to the Nazis is by far the worst thing you've done so far. You've just compared someone who hasnt had WMD since 91 to someone who tried to take over the world. Saddam hasnt tried that one yet last I checked.

There was no intelligence before the war. Nothing. Only speculation. I'm sorry, but speculation is not enough to declare war on a country. Because Bush THOUGHT they had something. And they've already published the official report - no WMDs. Maybe next time MJ.

Kerry agreed with the war and he's stated he supported Bush in the war, but he argueed that the way Bush went about it was completly wrong. Kerry was not against the war.



People, can you please use real information when your trying to argue facts? And maybe stop believing every bit of Bush propaganda. Thanks.

 

Wait, how do you do war wrong? In every war there has been inocent lives lost. Were those wars done wrong? In every war there is an enemy, were the wars before done wrong because we had enemies? I don't see how you can go about saying the war was done wrong??? "I support the war but it ws done wrong!" WTF? Should we have leveld the entire nation and then gone in? Should our solders introduce themselves before shootign someone? Should we make a broadcast to the enemy of where we are going to attack, wait for them to clear out, and then attack? WTF is doing a war wrong? You morons forget our president can't go to war without approval from congress. That means there were a lot of people involved in the decision.

And to you Lick, you realize in all your ranting you have said absolutly nothing? This is what you said "Bandit you go on about "all the evidence that was brought to Bush", totally ignoring the long and repeatedly revealed fact that any evidence was simply rejected out of hand. Ummm, if the evidence was rejected then WE WOULDNT BE IN A WAR!!!!

Because some guy you talk to on yahoo knows this person on msn that knows this person on aol that cybers with this person on icq that posts on some blog that hates America told you that the guy taking out the trash in an office in area 51 got hold of a secret document that reveals this secret agenda...did I get it all right? Man you are the kinda guy that thinks the MATRIX is real. Everything is a conspiracy to you. Wait, I have a big toe, you have a big toe....it's a conspiracy by the government to simulate us all!!!!!

You have all these big and fancy words yet say absolutly nothing. It's almost like....like...you are a polotician.

 

You continue to show your inabaility to comprehend plain english Bandit.

The evidence dismissed out of hand is that evidence which DID NOT COINCIDE WITH NOR REINFORCE THE IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA HELD BY THIS ADMIN FROM THE MOMENT IT RESUMED POWER. Is that simple enough a clarification for you?

Obviously your knowledge of geo-political reality is non existant or the PNAC agenda would be no surprise to you nor would it be scoffed at as some fringe conspiracy theory when in point of fact it is promoted for public consumption on the PNACs own site and had been regularly referred to by Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and even Cheney over the past several years as the cornerstone of their policy redirection.

You go on living in your misinformed Fox News drivel fed world of self aggrandized cluelessness. I for my part interact with these people and their minions in the state and defence departments on a regular basis and merely find you a lamentably programmed mouthpiece for what you truly do not comprehend is at work and whom is reaping the windfall.

But you obviously need a commercial break so we'll leave you there...

 

Bandit has been programmed.

 

You do realize that an official report just came out CONFIRMING that Saddam had rid of his weapons after 1991...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Keep the peace! Peace and Love.

 

if true conservatives are what pressed rat invisions in his mind, than i dont believe that there is such a thing as a true conservative

 

Ah such a rose could smell as sweet....

But what is in a name?
A name by any other name?
What is a conservative by a name?

 

This is no conspiracy. The PNAC agenda was to invade Iraq; this was thought up in the 90s.

"It has long been clear that the only way to rid the world of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is to rid Iraq of Saddam. Last week, Paul Wolfowitz, a defense official in the Bush administration, laid out in testimony before Congress a thoughtful and coherent strategy to accomplish that goal." From September 28, 1998. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-092898.htm

"It now seems fairly certain that some time in the next few weeks the Clinton administration will have to strike Iraq." From November 16, 1998. http://www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf


There's a bunch more at http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm.

 

No Iraq is but one step in the overall strategic emphasis of the PNAC agenda friend. Afghanistan was its first target actually and Iraq as well as several other key central asian targets. Its as much about invasion as it is solidifying hegemonic proxies. Its very much a conspiracy and one so transparently involving international finance as well as military might as to be laughably obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the global picture and not just isolated events.

I suggest you actually read the PNAC report and along with it the even more arrogant blueprint of exactly what is unfolding clearly now set forth in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives written in 97 by Zbigniew Brzezinski. There isnt even any attempt any longer to disguise the lies and intents of the current ruling cabal and their big money backers, they simply dont consider themselves touchable by the public who Brzezinski even goes so far as to call "vasals".

Hell, seeing so many so willing to remain happily compartmentalised and spoonfed a diet of sanitised decontextualised mainstream PR about wonderful extensions of Democracy (which are little more than horse and pony shows for legitimisation of those always intended to be installed in the new fiefdoms we conquer or reconquer), it's no wonder the lies have become so flagrantly transparent.

 

Ha, no shit. Very well put, Lick. It's all sickening to me really.

 

We liberated Iraq just like Hitler liberated Poland... The long and short of it is: Saddam Hussain was evil, yes, but he ruled with an Iron fist for a reason... Fear of Saddam stabilized an otherwise very unstable part of the world. Why do you think that George H.W. Bush stopped at Kuwait when we had them on the run? They didn't want to overthrow the only thing keeping the peace in the region. Dubya and Cheney went into Iraq, using the propaganda they created, funded by Halliburton, and took their oil. Can you honestly tell me that if Canada discovered gold on your property, invaded, took your house and said, screw you...deal with it... that you would support the decision? Anyone who supports Bush is just waiving around the flag that says, "hey, look at me, I can't think for myself, I believe everything the government tells me, and I'm all about giving up my civil liberties for 'protection from terrorists' " Is John Kerry the answer...probably not, but I'm willing to give him the opportunity to prove me wrong.

Come on people... think for yourself.

 

Why is it wrong for Saddam to kill Iraqis, but O.K. when we do?
Why aren't you over there anyways? Go to Iraq. Back up your convictions. If soldiers are going to be coming back home in caskets, then they should be the people that believe this war was just.

Ummmm....yeah, you're right, the weapons have yet to be found.

He didn't vote for the war. He would not have GONE to war. Get that through your thick skull once and for all.

 

Yes, he did vote for the invasion.

 

No he didn't.

 

He voted to give Bush the authority. That is differrent than voting for the invasion. I am so sick of hearing this paticular republican spin.