Let the impeachment rumblings begin.

[Electrophil]

So... heh..
The democrats walk in, and it's time for the White House shuffle to commence.

A person who would know quite a bit on the happenings in Iraq is being nominated for the United Nations Ambassador.
From Ambassador of a small insignificant country all the way to the United Nations. OK.

Then lets move the intelligence chief to Condi's office and get in a fresh replacement after only a year on the job. OK.

Then... what's that? Is that the White House Counsel saying "See ya! I quit."

If I was White House chief legal counsel, I couldn't think of a better time to throw in the hat.

I am just soooooo going to enjoy this. These moves are so obvious. Where's the popcorn? Going to be an interesting year.


http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=19061

[Electrophil]

But wait! There's more.

Time to replace the top generals out there, including the replacement of head of Central command with an "Admiral". Only one reason to put an Admiral in that position.

Yep... NOW... you worry about Iran. Called us unpatriotic when we were screaming this 4 years ago. Told us to "support our President during times of crisis." Well, some of us were more concerned with supporting our country against these.......

Idiots.

Payback time in all areas. What sucks is the ones of us fighting all of this are going to have to share in the Payback.

[Manarius]

Ugh. I hope the Democrats can help straighten some of this mess out in the next two years. This president has been one of the worst presidents EVER.

[Electrophil]

It's definately not going to be easy. How do we fix the debt without raising taxes, which none of us want? How do we get out of Iraq without the Iranians annexing the place?

It's a mess that's going to take a decade at the very least.

[lhopp77]

I am just soooooo going to enjoy this. These moves are so obvious. Where's the popcorn? Going to be an interesting year.


http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=19061

I suspect you may be correct, but not in the ways you are you hope.

Strange that you are linking Albuquerque, New Mexico news. Do you get that channel in your neck of the woods---or---maybe------------;)

Lee

[Electrophil]

I suspect you may be correct, but not in the ways you are you hope.

Strange that you are linking Albuquerque, New Mexico news. Do you get that channel in your neck of the woods---or---maybe------------;)

Lee

Lee! Wassup? Long time no hear.

My homepage is Google, and it just kind of randomly throws up headlines according to my history. I hate the ones that want you to "sign up for free!!" to read the article.

[Electrophil]

Wow... It's amazing. As soon as the Democrats took over, there is no one complaining about the government.

Coincidence? I think not.

[RSVX]

So, since there is no complaining... it must mean that Bush is doing a great job...

[Alcyone Lunacy]

Or we are all afraid to say what wwe really think of Bush for fear of the FEDs knocking on your door to arrest you for using your 1st amendment rights.

[Electrophil]

Or we are all afraid to say what wwe really think of Bush for fear of the FEDs knocking on your door to arrest you for using your 1st amendment rights.

I really don't think we are going to have that problem anymore. I think he's starting to worry about the FED's showing up at "his" door. :D

[Electrophil]

So, since there is no complaining... it must mean that Bush is doing a great job...

NOT!! :eek:

[Electrophil]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/10/third.tour.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[Manarius]

I love how Joe Biden said that congress has no right to tell the president how to make war. Hello Joe, get out your constitution! Congress controls the money so Congress can make the president their personal lapdog if they so choose. And there's no amount of executive agreements that will ever change the fact that Congress holds the key to the proverbial piggybank.

[Electrophil]

Joe Biden wants to split Iraq into 3 parts with a central government reigning. Last time I looked, it already was.

But I guess what's important is the guy is at least trying, and every single one of those Democrats have their own idea on what to do next. The fights are going to be a lot of fun. Plus, we might end up with a reasonable compromise that makes sense, instead of the continuous "hail to the chief!" yes boy crap we've seen over the last 5 or 6 years.

Once things get moving up there, I really think we are in for a couple of interesting years.:D The fights are going to be real popcorn treats. :)

Bush is now a stick figure. He's going to count very little, and hopefully the Congress will at least Censure him and Cheney. I'm still hoping for a couple of Prison sentences.

[lhopp77]

Bush is now a stick figure. He's going to count very little, and hopefully the Congress will at least Censure him and Cheney. I'm still hoping for a couple of Prison sentences.

Really? I kind of think that Veto power is a pretty big stick.

Actions against Bush and Cheney--I doubt it---people in glass houses.....etc.... To many skeletons in the Demo party members closets to rock to many boats. (Or all Congressional members for that matter) :)

Lee

[Electrophil]

Really? I kind of think that Veto power is a pretty big stick.

Actions against Bush and Cheney--I doubt it---people in glass houses.....etc.... To many skeletons in the Demo party members closets to rock to many boats. (Or all Congressional members for that matter) :)

Lee

Bush isn't smart enough. The Veto thing is going to backfire on him due to his history on Veto's for the last 6 years. It will make the republicans look bad, uhh.. if that's possible.

And skeletons in the closet didn't stop the Clinton BJ debacle. A lie is a lie, and I really believe they are going to shove subpoenas up his rear until he screws up. And he will... Like I said, he isn't very smart.

[lhopp77]

Like I said, he isn't very smart.

And like I said before........smart enough to graduate from Yale. :p

Lee

[Electrophil]

The rumble is still a rumble, but the rumble now has it's first mark on a calendar.

22 January, the trial begins against Libby. The defense attorney plans to call Cheney to the stand for a little under oath time.

I assume the prosecutor is standing by to take advantage of that little under oath time.:)

Rumble...rumble....

[Electrophil]

And like I said before........smart enough to graduate from Yale. :p

Lee

But not smart enough to run a business, state, or country. Just connected enough.:rolleyes:

[Manarius]

But not smart enough to run a business, state, or country. Just connected enough.:rolleyes:Fahrenheit 9/11 explains all that....and Moore has evidence (like, I've looked up the things myself that are not on Moore's website).

[lhopp77]

But not smart enough to run a business, state, or country. Just connected enough.:rolleyes:

Really--you still amaze me. He was successful enough as governor to get elected as prez and successful enough as prez to get re-elected. By most standards this would seem to be pretty successful. :rolleyes: "Connected" may get you in the ballpark, but it doesn't get you in the game. :D

I just love the negativism. The main reason it is quiet in here is that conservatives and/or "neocons" as you call them generally have more class and dignity than the far lefters. :p

We will attack or comment on individual issues, but NOT paint things or people with a broad "hate" brush. We will even give credit where it is due-----unlike many farlefters. :rolleyes: :p :D

Lee

[RSVX]

Fahrenheit 9/11 explains all that....and Moore has evidence (like, I've looked up the things myself that are not on Moore's website).

To even mention that you have watched that movie, and that you believe it tells me how much I should listen to you, and thats a giant not at all...

I mean come on... you couldnt have picked a more biased movie/docu-drama/whatever the hell it was...

Middle of the road, learn it/live it.

[Electrophil]

Really--you still amaze me. He was successful enough as governor to get elected as prez and successful enough as prez to get re-elected. By most standards this would seem to be pretty successful. :rolleyes: "Connected" may get you in the ballpark, but it doesn't get you in the game. :D

I just love the negativism. The main reason it is quiet in here is that conservatives and/or "neocons" as you call them generally have more class and dignity than the far lefters. :p

We will attack or comment on individual issues, but NOT paint things or people with a broad "hate" brush. We will even give credit where it is due-----unlike many farlefters. :rolleyes: :p :D

Lee

Yeah, we can sense all the class when the neo's interrupt normal business with a silly "can't tell my wife" impeachment proceeding.

What's happened over the last 6 years is a little more serious than cigar fetishes. A lot of people are dead, lots of debt, and in a war quagmire.

No credit is due. Time to pay the piper. :)

[Electrophil]

To even mention that you have watched that movie, and that you believe it tells me how much I should listen to you, and thats a giant not at all...

I mean come on... you couldnt have picked a more biased movie/docu-drama/whatever the hell it was...

Middle of the road, learn it/live it.

I never mentioned Fahreinheit 9/11. Not that some of the movie wasn't true.

[RSVX]

I never mentioned Fahreinheit 9/11. Not that some of the movie wasn't true.


I know you didnt, thats why I quoted Manarius... :-)

I am not saying the movie is a total fabrication, there is truth to be found in every story... but that story goes way beyond what the word bias can describe.

[Aredubjay]

Gee. I could start writing now and not EVEN stop for a couple of eons, BUT, I'll refrain.

The total fact of the matter is that the insurgents and all those who hate the U.S. are laughing and slapping their knees at the constant barrage of vitriol that is being fired at the President - they are becoming emboldened and all the nonsensical bickering is not making the President look week, it's making the entire country look weak. "Well it's his fault," some say. BALONEY! It's the fault of a pack of pissed off people who can't get over the fact that Albert Gore Jr. didn't get into the white house, so we could just make nicey nice with everybody who hates us and diplomatically ease all the world's woes. The poison has just gotten thicker since that time. So, the American people finally got tired of hearing it. Democrats count it a victory that republicans have been displaced. Don't. It wasn't an "I love you, come save us." It was a "put up or shut up."

It's time to put all that crap behind us and move forward, unified, knowing that if something had not been done...I know -- you don't believe it, but, the fortunate truth is that President Bush will never be proven right about the war in Iraq because Saddam won't be around to do what everybody (including the democrats) were sure he'd do at some point in time.

I hate war. FDR hated war. Eleanor hated war. Even FDR's little dog Fala hated war. We can fight it there, or fight it here.

To think that the Iraqi people, a society that has never HAD to step up and take care of itself, has undergone generations of "boxed in" existence and is used to having things done for them, is going to all of a sudden "snap to" and become a democratic entity is ludicrious. It - will - take -time. And if we're forced to vacate the task of putting these folks back on their feet too soon...well, may God help us.

Yes, I want it to be over. I want our troops to come home. I want them to be safe and I want them to rejoin their families. But, most of all, I want them to know that I cannot express the measure of respect that I have for them for accepting the responsibility for serving and going where their country has asked them to, and performing their duties as the finest and most powerful military force in the world. It only serves to denigrate their service and their sacrifice, if we continue to call this a lost cause.

We can all sit in the comfort of our easy chairs -- those for, and those against -- the war, the President, the republicans and democrats, but, 'til you've been there...

That's just my 10 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation)

[Electrophil]

You guys really need to quit trying to make Iraq part of the war on terror. It never was part of that.

Ahh man, I was duped into the slogan again.

There isn't a war on terror. There never was. We threw out a government in Afghanistan when they replied to us "We can't give him to you because we don't know where he is."

Hey! Guess what!!

Besides...
How can you declare war on a noun? Or is it a noun? According to wikipedia, there are 109 definitions of the word terror.

We can't win the war on drugs.
We can't win the war on Poverty.
We can't win the war on terror.
Because you can't win a war against a noun.

The war is against Al Qaeda. The group we trained and financed back in the USSR's days of infamy.

It's still going on....

If we need to declare war on Hezbollah, that's also different.

The war on terror doesn't exist, and if it did.... Iraq did not have anything to do with it. Never did, and logic dictated that from the beginning. A dictator does NOT SHARE POWER. It goes against the very foundation of the meaning of "dictator".


This means the people responsible for placing us in Iraq need to be held accountable. This fact keeps getting overlooked, or glossed over by the republican controlled congress voting to allow the president to make that decision.

The president got the vote under false pretenses, and he put us in war under false pretenses.

It's time he went to jail for it, with Cheney in the next cell over.

[RSVX]

I'm sorry, but I may have misread...

No, wait a minute... I didn't!!!

Nowhere.. and I mean NOWHERE in Randy's post did he mention jack sh!t about a war on terror...

So you tell me who is propagating this crap, cause it certainly wasn't him...

In fact, the word "terror" was spoken (typed 7 times on this page of the thread (including this one))... and 5 of them were in Phils post...


And oh yeah, I agree with everything in Randy's post...

[Aredubjay]

The president got the vote under false pretenses, and he put us in war under false pretenses.


Three -- not one, not two, but three independent, bi-partisan commissions have said this is false, so, it's time this mantra went to bed. Britain, Russian, French intellegence ALL believed Saddam was a threat and had WMDs. Kennedy believed Saddam should have been disarmed. Kerry called Saddam's removal as well as other prominent dems, and the latter voiced this sentiment during Clinton's administration.

They've FOUND no WMDs -- doesn't mean they weren't there. From the time Colin Powell presented evidence to the UN and the UN did nothing, despite STRONG talk in the resolutions (read them) and the foot-draggin' began, Saddam had time to evacuate the entire population of Iraq, not to mention a few WMDs -- which his own former General perports were spirited away in stripped passenger planes to Syria under the guise of "flood relief," six weeks prior to the U.S. entering the country. O'course, Syria ain't sayin'. It's gonna be hard to prove...or disprove.

Also, Saddam wad'nt dumb. Remember the "Super Gun" that was found after the Iran/Iraq war and the pieces for a larger one, seized in London, on its way to Iraq, capable of sending a projectile into space? We were looking for missile silos and he was planning on using a freakin' CANNON -- lo-tech weaponery capable of high-level damage. There was also speculation that Saddam had several locations using WWII technology (yes, that technology's been around for a while) to enrich his uranium in small doses, to eventually come together to make the "big boom." Such lo-tech sites were found after Desert Storm http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/09_Lowest_Tech_Atom_Bomb.htm

I'm not saying screw-ups didn't happen. But I will say that I believe it was the right thing to do. And, I'm not sayin' all's lookin' hunkey-dorey. But I will say we've got to put in the time it takes to get the job done. AFTER the job's done, people can ***** all they want to, but, for now, let's get behind the home team and quit emboldening those who hate us, by making them feel legitimized.

[RSVX]

I'm not saying screw-ups didn't happen. But I will say that I believe it was the right thing to do. And, I'm not sayin' all's lookin' hunkey-dorey. But I will say we've got to put in the time it takes to get the job done. AFTER the job's done, people can ***** all they want to, but, for now, let's get behind the home team and quit emboldening those who hate us, by making them feel legitimized.

I love you, man!

[Manarius]

The president got the vote under false pretenses, and he put us in war under false pretenses.

It's time he went to jail for it, with Cheney in the next cell over.Phil you're exactly right. This whole "Saddam may have had.." bs is courtesy of the neocons and their "We only watch Fox news" press releases. We all know that Saddam had nothin', he never did, and never will (he's dead now so..). Besides, all the weapons those God-Forsaken "terrorists" are using to shoot at us came from....us! Iraq is George W Bush's Vietnam - only without the censored information that LBJ got back in the late 60's. This phony war was built on God knows what and now good Americans are paying for it with their lives and your children and my children are going to be paying for it for the rest of their lives paying off the 9 trillion dollar deficit!

As I see it, there are two solutions:
1. Pull the hell out of Iraq right now. We're not going to accomplish anything there. The false government we set up isn't going to do anything and it'll just have to be turned into dictatorship to keep the crazy people under control.

-OR-

2. Shoot everything that moves. I mean, no geneva convention, no nothing. Make it like REAL war. If you're out, you're getting shot. Shoot first, ask questions later. Wage a real war, not this..whatever you wanna call it - fighting with your hands tied behind your back tied to a chair. Sure, there will be lots of death and destruction, but we'll wipe out those vermin for good. Granted, they'll just pop up somewhere else, but maybe next time we can make them come here and attack us like a real "country" or whatever the hell they are.

Iraq was a major mistake, and I don't care what senator said it was okay - Democrat or not.

I also resent that you hold my opinion as less valued because I watched Fahrenheit 9/11. Nowhere did I say it was my Bible or that I believed it 100%. However, there are some things in there that CANNOT be denied, slanted or not. I know it's slanted, what do you think I am, some yuppie liberal like Hillary Clinton!? For God's sake.

[RSVX]

maybe next time we can make them come here and attack us like a real "country" or whatever the hell they are.

OK, so you *want* them to attack us here? Interesting... to say the least.




I also resent that you hold my opinion as less valued because I watched Fahrenheit 9/11. Nowhere did I say it was my Bible or that I believed it 100%. However, there are some things in there that CANNOT be denied, slanted or not. I know it's slanted, what do you think I am, some yuppie liberal like Hillary Clinton!? For God's sake.

The way you type about certain topics... Yes... yes I do.

[Landshark]

We all know that Saddam had nothin', he never did, and never will (he's dead now so..).

oh, so you've been to Iraq and conducted a thorough search before all the stalling tactics Saddam put up?
answer me this:
if you had nothing to hide, wouldn't you allow weapons inspectors to fully search your stuff, so they would get the hell out and you wouldn't have to deal with sanctions for no reason? the Soviet Union would come up clean if they were given the amount of time Saddam had to dismantle/hide/export WMD's. :rolleyes:


....maybe next time we can make them come here and attack us like a real "country" or whatever the hell they are.

wow. just, wow. after reading that, i see were you're coming from now......"special education".
i wonder if your view would change if your family was captured by foreign invaders on our soil and tortured or killed?

[Manarius]

if you had nothing to hide, wouldn't you allow weapons inspectors to fully search your stuff, so they would get the hell out and you wouldn't have to deal with sanctions for no reason?Why should my rights be violated by someone searching my stuff? Granted the situation is different with me as a citizen vs. me as a country. If I was a country, I'm bound by the laws of the UN (if I'm in the UN, which Saddam was), so I'm bound by law to have no nukes. I don't like when people search for no good reason, but the UN had the right to search and he didn't let them search to their full extent (so he was breaking UN law). That doesn't mean we as the "police of the world" (which we shouldn't be), have the right to just kick down the door in the name of justice. We are not an "attack first" first country - never were until Vietnam, and we see how well that went.

wow. just, wow. after reading that, i see were you're coming from now......"special education".
i wonder if your view would change if your family was captured by foreign invaders on our soil and tortured or killed?I'd be far more inclined to wanna fight them off our soil, instead of attacking them for no good reason. Do I want them to attack here? No. I want them to attack something of ours first. We have no right to go attack people for no good reason - and what we "think" isn't good enough.

[lhopp77]

I'm not saying screw-ups didn't happen. But I will say that I believe it was the right thing to do. And, I'm not sayin' all's lookin' hunkey-dorey. But I will say we've got to put in the time it takes to get the job done. AFTER the job's done, people can ***** all they want to, but, for now, let's get behind the home team and quit emboldening those who hate us, by making them feel legitimized.

Loud and clear! Amen! ;) :D

Lee

[Aredubjay]

Phil you're exactly right. This whole "Saddam may have had.." bs is courtesy of the neocons and their "We only watch Fox news" press releases. We all know that Saddam had nothin', he never did, and never will (he's dead now so..). Besides, all the weapons those God-Forsaken "terrorists" are using to shoot at us came from....us! Iraq is George W Bush's Vietnam - only without the censored information that LBJ got back in the late 60's. This phony war was built on God knows what and now good Americans are paying for it with their lives and your children and my children are going to be paying for it for the rest of their lives paying off the 9 trillion dollar deficit!

As I see it, there are two solutions:
1. Pull the hell out of Iraq right now. We're not going to accomplish anything there. The false government we set up isn't going to do anything and it'll just have to be turned into dictatorship to keep the crazy people under control.

-OR-

2. Shoot everything that moves. I mean, no geneva convention, no nothing. Make it like REAL war. If you're out, you're getting shot. Shoot first, ask questions later. Wage a real war, not this..whatever you wanna call it - fighting with your hands tied behind your back tied to a chair. Sure, there will be lots of death and destruction, but we'll wipe out those vermin for good. Granted, they'll just pop up somewhere else, but maybe next time we can make them come here and attack us like a real "country" or whatever the hell they are.

Iraq was a major mistake, and I don't care what senator said it was okay - Democrat or not.

I also resent that you hold my opinion as less valued because I watched Fahrenheit 9/11. Nowhere did I say it was my Bible or that I believed it 100%. However, there are some things in there that CANNOT be denied, slanted or not. I know it's slanted, what do you think I am, some yuppie liberal like Hillary Clinton!? For God's sake.

Jason,
First of all, please let me note that I respect and, actually, value your opinion.

As far as "wars" go, we have (I include myself, and I missed being drafted for viet nam by "that" much) have been spoiled. The "wars" that we have fought in the last three decades have not been wars. The lives that have been given in this war -- every one of them precious, all valued and I'm in no way trying to belittle their sacrifice -- are but a fraction of the lives that were given in a single battle in past "wars." WWII went from 1939 to 1945. 407,300 military men and women gave their lives. That's an average of almost 70,000 per year. We lost 20,000 alone in the "Battle of the Bulge" which lumbered on for an entire month. In the battle of Gettysburg, there were over 40,000 American lives lost -- 23,000 Union Soldiers and 20,000 Confederates -- again, in just ONE battle. All tolled, almost one million lives were lost in a war that lasted around 4 years. We've become such a McDonald's (instant gratification), Bic Click (use it once and throw it away) society that we can't imagine what a real war is. We've also become so dad-gummed politically correct that we can't fight a conventional war, conventionally.

So, the war's not "popular." What war really is? But just think about this: If Abraham Lincoln had led the Civil War by popular opinion, we'd all be living under the Stars and Bars, instead of the Stars and Stripes today.

[Trevor]

I'm not saying screw-ups didn't happen. But I will say that I believe it was the right thing to do. And, I'm not sayin' all's lookin' hunkey-dorey. But I will say we've got to put in the time it takes to get the job done. AFTER the job's done, people can ***** all they want to, but, for now, let's get behind the home team and quit emboldening those who hate us, by making them feel legitimized.

Randy, all the guns at Fort Revor are shooting for you. ;) :D

[Electrophil]

I'm sorry, but I may have misread...

No, wait a minute... I didn't!!!

Nowhere.. and I mean NOWHERE in Randy's post did he mention jack sh!t about a war on terror...

So you tell me who is propagating this crap, cause it certainly wasn't him...

In fact, the word "terror" was spoken (typed 7 times on this page of the thread (including this one))... and 5 of them were in Phils post...


And oh yeah, I agree with everything in Randy's post...

Randy said quote: "We can fight it there, or fight it here."

Just exactly what do you think he meant by that?

[Electrophil]

So, the war's not "popular." What war really is? But just think about this: If Abraham Lincoln had led the Civil War by popular opinion, we'd all be living under the Stars and Bars, instead of the Stars and Stripes today.

The concern is not that the war is unpopular, the concern lies that it is an unjust and unnecessary war. War is a tool of last resort. This wasn't last resort in any sense of the term, even if the President and Vice President actually believed the BS they were spewing at the onset. (Which they didn't)

They need to be held accountable. And we need to keep tagging that point until they are held accountable.

[Trevor]

The concern is not that the war is unpopular, the concern lies that it is an unjust and unnecessary war. War is a tool of last resort. This wasn't last resort in any sense of the term, even if the President and Vice President actually believed the BS they were spewing at the onset. (Which they didn't)

They need to be held accountable. And we need to keep tagging that point until they are held accountable.

You are accusing both your President and the next in line, of absolute dishonesty, in making a decision which is beyond your comprehension. You express opinions based on here-say not factual evidence.

As a person of intelligence, would you please advise as to how history would have unfolded, if your course of action had been followed. All is easy after the fact.

[Electrophil]

You are accusing both your President and the next in line, of absolute dishonesty, in making a decision which is beyond your comprehension. You express opinions based on here-say not factual evidence.

As a person of intelligence, would you please advise as to how history would have unfolded, if your course of action had been followed. All is easy after the fact.

That's not true. There is fact. This administration changed their story several times to achieve their goal. This is all documented fact.

Reminder of the "last months" prior to the invasion.

1: We must remove Saddam to liberate the people of Iraq and release them from the sufferings of the sanctions.

Our media went insane due to the prior comments from Bush on "Nation Building". This is actually the first use of the term "Flip Flopping" I had heard and was way prior to Kerry. The administration backed off.

9/11 occurred.

2: We must remove Saddam, for he is an immediate threat to our security.

Saddam said "How? How am I an immediate threat, or any kind of threat to the United States? I pose no threat, your president is a liar and has his own agenda. He wishes to invade my country, and he is seeking excuses." (CNN interview, Mar 2002)

The term WMD is born. All of a sudden, all we hear is where the WMD's are from Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfield on Fox news.

Saddam throws the inspectors out in protest.

2: We must remove Saddam for he is not cooperating with the United Nations.

Saddam allows the inspectors back in.

3: We must remove Saddam for he is an immediate threat to our country, take 2.

Fox picks up the banter. Everyone else first ignores, but the WMD ticket is growing like wildfire due to Bush's negligence on 9/11. Fox pushes the "We must support the president in times of Crisis!" to the point of nausea.

4: We must remove Saddam for he is not allowing inspectors into his home.

Congress passes legislation allowing the President to make the War decision if necessary. Only a couple say no, for the Fox banter of "Support your president in times of crisis!" has taken full hold, and the ones of us who are thinking are stifled by the madness.

Saddam let them into his main residence... nothing of course was found. Statesmen don't keep cyanide gas in their refrigerator.

5: Saddam, you have 72 hours to leave Iraq, or we will invade.
This is the most important one to remember then. It wasn't a hindsight thing. Leave, or I invade is not a reason to put us at war.

Saddam refuses, we invade.

Mission Accomplished!! Flight suit photo op!!

Reality sinks in with the mindless Fox followers.

6: We invaded due to WMD's.... none found.

7: We invaded due to Saddam's links to terrorism...... no links found.

8: We invaded to liberate the Iraqi people from a heartless dictator.

This brings us up to date, doesn't it? We are sacrificing our countrymen as missionaries for a President who doesn't believe in Nation Building?

None of that was hindsight stuff. A bunch of us were kicking and screaming the whole way.... myself included. We still are! And still.... to this day, there are some that are still in the mindset they were in the Fox News "Support your president" scheme. Some of you "still" haven't wakened.

There were lots of suspicions from the very beginning. Libby is in trouble right now over those suspicions by top level personnel...BEFORE the war occurred.

No.... a bunch of bible thumping, neo-con, uneducated nimrods sat around listening to Fox, and gave him some sort of validation. Most of those guys have now been chased back to the titty bar where they belong, and out of politics.

Now it's time to get the two most responsible for causing all the non-existant hype, and put them in jail.

It's only an investigation away, and putting Cheney on the stand with Libby may help out a bit. We don't have the Nixon tapes this time, but there is still plenty of evidence to make a case to investigate, and find the real evidence.

How much has Haliburton made off of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway? What about that pipeline Haliburton is building through Afghanistan that permission had stalled prior to 9/11? Why is a former foreign consultant to Haliburton now the leader of that country? These aren't "conspiracies", or rumors.. They are dead on facts that aren't even the least bit hidden. What kind of a hint do we need there were hidden agendas not in our national interests to invade?

There is no huge terrorist threat. There is a threat, but it is no larger than it was in the 80's or 90's. It's just that in 2001, the idiots allowed a huge one to slip through.

Who got medals for that?

All this is going to come out. It's going to hit. And even you have to agree.... The war was unjustified from day one.

[Trevor]

.

As a person of intelligence, would you please advise as to how history would have unfolded, if your course of action had been followed. All is easy after the fact.

:confused:

[Electrophil]

:confused:

I'll just throw out 10 at random without putting too much thought into it.

1: No civil war in Iraq
2: 600 Billion less tacked on to our National debt, and the resulting yearly interest payments.
3: 3 thousand less 19 to 38 year olds in our gene pool still alive
4: Countless Iraqi's still alive
5: No loss of respect from foreign countries.
6: Republicans would still run congress
7: Less terrorist breeding grounds.
8: Far less anger in the middle east driving terrorism
9: More effort and troops placed on finding the criminal responsible for 9/11
10: A check and balance against Iran would still be in place with Iran's fear of Saddam Hussein playing in our corner, and causing them to be more cooperative.

That's just a quick, no real order, right off the top of my head three minute list.

There's more of course, and those may not be the most important.

[Manarius]

#4: 34,000 Iraqi's died last year alone.

[Aredubjay]

Randy, all the guns at Fort Revor are shooting for you. ;) :D



Trevor, my man! How's my old Kiwi friend? Hope all's well and keep the cannons at Fort Revor blazin'!:D

[Aredubjay]

#4: 34,000 Iraqi's died last year alone.



As compared to...how many...at Saddam's hand?

[Aredubjay]

That's not true. There is fact. This administration changed their story several times to achieve their goal. This is all documented fact.

You call the following "documentation," I call it opinion.

Reminder of the "last months" prior to the invasion.

1: We must remove Saddam to liberate the people of Iraq and release them from the sufferings of the sanctions.

Yes? And your point?

Our media went insane due to the prior comments from Bush on "Nation Building". Our obvious anti-bush media goes "insane" any time they can find an opportunity to refute anything our president says -- have done since GOre lost.This is actually the first use of the term "Flip Flopping" I had heard and was way prior to Kerry. The administration backed off.Gee. How old are you again? "Flip flopping" was used quite liberally when referring to the first Clinton term. During his earliest years, he succeeded in turniing the white house into a "waffle" house, while in latter, he turned the white house into a cathouse. :D

9/11 occurred.....and this changed things, indeed. Afganistan was invaded and the closest place for Al and his Qaedas to run was...you guessed it.

2: We must remove Saddam, for he is an immediate threat to our security.

Saddam said "How? How am I an immediate threat, or any kind of threat to the United States? I pose no threat, your president is a liar And you believed SADDAM when he said this? You're willing to take the word of a ruthless murdering dictator -- who led inspectors around by the nose, who was continually murdering his own people, and who thumbed his nose at UN sanctions ... PUH-LEEZE! and has his own agenda. He wishes to invade my country, and he is seeking excuses." (CNN interview, Mar 2002)

The term WMD is born. All of a sudden, all we hear is where the WMD's are from Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfield on Fox news.

Saddam throws the inspectors out in protest.

2: We must remove Saddam for he is not cooperating with the United Nations.

Saddam allows the inspectors back in.

3: We must remove Saddam for he is an immediate threat to our country, take 2.

Fox picks up the banter. Everyone else first ignores, but the WMD ticket is growing like wildfire due to Bush's negligence on 9/11. Fox pushes the "We must support the president in times of Crisis!" to the point of nausea. At this point, I'd suggest you stop watchng Fox news. It's obviously affecting your health. Turn to CNN or MSNBC -- you'll feel much better. See my former post about UN sanctions and Saddams willingness to ignore them, the UN's threats and continued non-action, and, by all means, please read the UN resolutions to get a better handle on the way things should and did play out.

4: We must remove Saddam for he is not allowing inspectors into his home.

Congress passes legislation allowing the President to make the War decision if necessary. Only a couple say no, for the Fox banter of "Support your president in times of crisis!" has taken full hold, and the ones of us who are thinking are stifled by the madness.

Saddam let them into his main residence... nothing of course was found. Statesmen don't keep cyanide gas in their refrigerator.No. Though we've found out that they do keep large stacks of cash -- at least in the U.S. :rolleyes:

5: Saddam, you have 72 hours to leave Iraq, or we will invade.
This is the most important one to remember then. It wasn't a hindsight thing. Leave, or I invade is not a reason to put us at war.

Saddam refuses, we invade.

Mission Accomplished!! Flight suit photo op!!

Reality sinks in with the mindless Fox followers You REALLY need to stop watching Fox -- it's affecting your sense of judgement. You've been so indoctrinated by CNN, that Fox is the devil, that you're beginning to believe it;) Apparently, the majority of Americans are "mindless" since people keep flocking to Fox news (according to cable ratings).

6: We invaded due to WMD's.... none found Still doesn't mean they didn't exist. See my previous post. Not to mention many of the ingredients for chemical weapons are inert until mixed -- easily sifted into the sand, and Iraq has A LOT of sand..

7: We invaded due to Saddam's links to terrorism...... no links found I beg to differ -- look again..

8: We invaded to liberate the Iraqi people from a heartless dictator.

This brings us up to date, doesn't it? We are sacrificing our countrymen as missionaries for a President who doesn't believe in Nation Building?

None of that was hindsight stuff. Wait -- you've used these as your talking points, and you say it's not hindsight stuff -- uhm -- all this has ALREADY HAPPENED...putting it into past tense...making it "hindsight." Y'need to check that dictionary again. A bunch of us were kicking and screaming the whole way.... myself included.And that's good -- you should, if you disagree. We still are! And you should keep it up, if you disagree And still.... to this day, there are some that are still in the mindset they were in the Fox News "Support your president" scheme. Man, you've got to get over this Fox news thing. Believe it or not, some of us who support the president are capable of conscious thought without the help of Fox news -- some of us make our own decisions by doing the research and making decisions based on actual information we've gathered on our own -- thankyaverrymuch. Some of you "still" haven't wakened.The question of who has and has not "awakened" is relative and only history will be able to shed light. We'll have to wait and see. Meanwhile, I'll trust those who are actually IN Iraq to make the decisions about what needs to be done. Armchair quarterbacks, or even senators (republican or democrat) who are not privy to FIRST-HAND info and are merely fed the body count on a daily basis, cannot judge what needs to be done.

There were lots of suspicions from the very beginning. Libby is in trouble right now over those suspicions by top level personnel...BEFORE the war occurred.

No.... a bunch of bible thumping, neo-con, uneducated nimrods sat around listening to Fox, and gave him some sort of validation. Most of those guys have now been chased back to the titty bar where they belong, and out of politics.

Now it's time to get the two most responsible for causing all the non-existant hype, and put them in jail.

It's only an investigation away, and putting Cheney on the stand with Libby may help out a bit. We don't have the Nixon tapes this time, but there is still plenty of evidence to make a case to investigate, and find the real evidence.

How much has Haliburton made off of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway? What about that pipeline Haliburton is building through Afghanistan that permission had stalled prior to 9/11? Why is a former foreign consultant to Haliburton now the leader of that country? These aren't "conspiracies", or rumors.. They are dead on facts that aren't even the least bit hidden. What kind of a hint do we need there were hidden agendas not in our national interests to invade?

There is no huge terrorist threat. There is a threat, but it is no larger than it was in the 80's or 90's. It's just that in 2001, the idiots allowed a huge one to slip through.

Who got medals for that?

All this is going to come out. It's going to hit. And even you have to agree.... The war was unjustified from day one.

Gee, I'm gonna have to finish this at a later date -- I have to go "thump my bible" and watch some Fox news -- DUH DEE DUH DEE DOH -- I'm such a mindless, unintellectual dimwit, I just can't exist under the superior intellect of this "clear-thinking" geeenius! ;)

I just found out that I can't respond "within" a quotation or the software thinks my message is too short -- ennyhoo, I've made some responses in blue, but, grew weary, plus, had other things to do like ... watch football or something. :)

[Electrophil]

As compared to...how many...at Saddam's hand?

He didn't kill any last year. It was a slow year for him. :D

[Trevor]

I just found out that I can't respond "within" a quotation or the software thinks my message is too short -- ennyhoo, I've made some responses in blue, but, grew weary, plus, had other things to do like ... watch football or something. :)

Randy, the guns are still with you from Fort Revor. Stick to yours. :D

[RSVX]

He didn't kill any last year. It was a slow year for him. :D

After all that Randy said, thats all you can reply with? Wow... he must really have stumped you!

[lhopp77]

Saddam Obituary Omissions......

All the obits written about Saddam were incomplete as they left out a complete listing of all his surviving sons and daughters. A corrected paragraph follows:

He was predeceased by two sons, Uday and Qusay, and is survived by 15 sons: Sooflay, a restauranteur; Guday, who lives in Australia; Huray, a sports fanatic; Sashay, who is gay; Kuntay and Kintay, twins living in Africa; Sayhay, a baseball player; Ojay, a stalker and murderer;
Gulay, a singer and entertainer; Ebay, an internet entrepreneur; Biliray, a country music star; Ecksray, a radiologist; Puray, a manufacturer of kitchen blenders; Raygay, who lives in Jamaica; and Tupay, who is bald, and by seven daughters: Lattay, a coffee-shop owner; Bufay, a big eater; Dushay, owner of a feminine-care-products
company; Phayray, an actress; Sapheway, a grocery store owner; Ollay, who lives in Mexico; and Gudlay, a prostitute. There is reportedly another surviving son, Oyvay, but he has been disowned by the family.


Have a nice day everyone. ;) :D

Lee

[Manarius]

As compared to...how many...at Saddam's hand?According to fact? 148. That's all he was convicted of.

How many according to Karl Rove? So many that we just had to invade Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm <-- Saddam gassed his own people? Are we so sure? Or is this just Fox News changing the truth again?

[lhopp77]

According to fact? 148. That's all he was convicted of.

How many according to Karl Rove? So many that we just had to invade Iraq.



As usual you apply different standards when it suits your purpose. By conviction Saddam---148 and under charges for many more while and history supports the thousands known to the world. Lets see in addition to his own people---I think there was a war with Iran as well as an invasion of Kuwait.

Get a grip on reality. :rolleyes:

Lee

[Manarius]

As usual you apply different standards when it suits your purpose. By conviction Saddam---148 and under charges for many more while and history supports the thousands known to the world.

Get a grip on reality. :rolleyes:

LeeHuh? Who's saying that Bush and Cheney won't be charged for the deaths of the over 3000 American soldiers?

History doesn't even support those 5000 gassed people! Read the article!

[RSVX]

Huh? Who's saying that Bush and Cheney won't be charged for the deaths of the over 3000 American soldiers?

History doesn't even support those 5000 gassed people! Read the article!

One Article... just one, not 5 or 10 or even 20... wow... remind me to get you to join this pyramid scheme I have going... no worries though, its a great product... Tin Foil hats...

[Manarius]

One Article... just one, not 5 or 10 or even 20... wow... remind me to get you to join this pyramid scheme I have going... no worries though, its a great product... Tin Foil hats...I only linked to one, but I can find more if you want.

[RSVX]

I want.:cool:

[Trevor]

Randy, the guns are still with you from Fort Revor. Stick to yours. :D

Dug it out for you. :D

[Electrophil]

After all that Randy said, thats all you can reply with? Wow... he must really have stumped you!

Oh, no, no, no... I just didn't have any time then. I still don't until a little later tonight. No, my guns are out! I'm just waiting on the time to aim. :D

[Aredubjay]

Oh, no, no, no... I just didn't have any time then. I still don't until a little later tonight. No, my guns are out! I'm just waiting on the time to aim. :D


Now, see -- this is the kind of reparte that should be going on in congress. We play verbal "tennis," but we're not "cut throats" who have to resort to pure, unadulterated name-calling. I laughed out loud at the "slow year" comment. Good form! :D

[Aredubjay]

Dug it out for you. :D

Perfect!:D

Some of you guys probably don't know what I'm talking about when I talk about Saddam's "super gun," (which is what Trevor is referencing here), so, here's da poop:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/supergun.htm

[Trevor]

Perfect!:D

Some of you guys probably don't know what I'm talking about when I talk about Saddam's "super gun," (which is what Trevor is referencing here), so, here's da poop:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/supergun.htm

Randy, you should also wise them up on the wonders of our one and only Fort Revor. :rolleyes:

[Aredubjay]

Randy, you should also wise them up on the wonders of our one and only Fort Revor. :rolleyes:


Nah. Let 'em wonder. :D

[Electrophil]

Really? I kind of think that Veto power is a pretty big stick.

Actions against Bush and Cheney--I doubt it---people in glass houses.....etc.... To many skeletons in the Demo party members closets to rock to many boats. (Or all Congressional members for that matter) :)

Lee

Obviously, you haven't heard the beating the Attorney General just took.

Nope... The storm is going to hit.

Time is beating me to death right now. I'm wanting to make some long winded replies and ***** slap you neo-cons around so bad I can taste it. In a couple of days... stand by.

[bwb3]

Fort Revor, Ky. vs. For Trevor. :D Do I win a Prize?
Gene

[Aredubjay]

Fort Revor, Ky. vs. For Trevor. :D Do I win a Prize?
Gene


Very good! You win a lifetime membership on the Subaru SVX World Network!

SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOUR ACTUAL MILEAGE MAY VARY, DO NOT FOLD, STAPLE OR MUTILATE OR STORE AT TEMPURATURES BELOW 30 DEGREES FARENHEIT OR EXCEEDING 65 DEGREES FARENHEIT, VOID WHERE PROHIBITED, CONTAINS FD AND C YELLOW, RED AND NATURAL AND ARTIFICAL FLAVORS AND COLORING. DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING. ALL TAXES, GRATUITIES AND FEES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE WINNER.

[Aredubjay]

I'm wanting to make some long winded replies and ***** slap you neo-cons around so bad I can taste it. In a couple of days... stand by.


Oooooo... slap me, beat me, call me dirty names and make me write bad checks -- you brute! :D

[Electrophil]

I just wrote this long winded rebuttal and my system froze up on "Submit Reply". This suxored really bad.

[RSVX]

I just wrote this long winded rebuttal and my system froze up on "Submit Reply". This suxored really bad.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[lhopp77]

Robert, don't you just hate things like this. Good 'ol Bush seems to be doing several things right. :D

Surprising US economic strength to keep Fed on hold
2007-01-28 04:16:55.0
WASHINGTON (AFX) - After a surprising show of strength in the US economy, the Federal Reserve is likely to keep interest rates steady at its upcoming monetary policy meeting to see if the trend continues, analysts say.

The Federal Open Market Committee, which meets Wednesday, is widely expected to keep its base rate at 5.25 pct, where it has been since August, when the panel halted a series of 17 consecutive quarter-point increases to stem inflation.

In addition, the central bank is likely to maintain its warning or "bias" toward another rate increase, which analysts say is aimed at keeping inflation expectations in check.

While most Fed-watchers see no change in the funds rate Wednesday, more significant will be the statement on the panel's assessment of economic conditions, which will provide clues on the Fed's next move.

Stronger-than-expected data has eased concerns that the economy might slip into recession. At the same time, it has diminished prospects for a rate cut that might be needed to stimulate activity, say economists.

"The problem for the Fed is that the FOMC meets (this) week and they have these strong housing data and even better general economic numbers to contend with," said Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors. "The slowdown they had been pointing to is no longer there."

John Lonski, chief economist at Moody's Investors Service, said the Fed is starting to come to grips with a stronger economy.

"If anything, the likelihood of a change in Fed policy is now shifting from a rate cut to a rate increase," Lonski said.

Even though the labor market is tightening and boosting wage inflation pressures, Lonski said that "the idea of a rate hike cannot be taken seriously until the uncertainties surrounding housing have been sufficiently resolved."

In the past few weeks, even the most bearish analysts have been upgrading their forecasts from a gloomy outlook to one that shows steady and moderate growth for the fourth quarter of 2006 and early 2007.

Data in the past few weeks showed US employers added a healthy 167,000 new jobs in December, while the housing market, the main source of economic weakness, appears to have stabilized.

New home sales rose 4.8 pct in December, defying expectations of weakness and US home resales slipped 0.8 pct, leading some economists to suggests that the worst of the housing slump is over.

Deutsche Bank chief US economist Joseph LaVorgna, who a month ago had projected zero growth in the fourth quarter, is now considerably more optimistic.

LaVorgna now sees fourth-quarter growth at a 2.3 pct annualized pace and a 1.8 pct expansion in the first quarter of 2007.

"Since early December nearly every one of the major monthly economic indicators that we track was stronger than expected," he said.

Lavorgna said he still believes the Fed will cut rates, but later than he had earlier predicted and not as much.

"We have pushed our forecast for the timing of the Fed's first rate cut to the second half this year," he said. "As a result, we now see the Fed cutting rates only 50 basis points, not the 100 basis points we had thought before, when the economy looked like it was ready to crack."

Other analysts say the economy is even stronger, and that the Fed may have to consider hiking rates instead of lowering them.

Citigroup chief economist Lewis Alexander sees overall economic growth for 2007 at 3.1 pct.

"Despite the crash in housing, the US economy overall remains set for a soft landing, with average growth in the 3.0 to 3.5 range in 2007," he said.

"Corporate finances overall are in good shape, financial conditions are slightly accommodative, job growth remains healthy, and lower oil prices are lifting real incomes. Second, housing demand already shows signs that the worst of the downturn has passed and the imbalance between demand and supply is starting to ease."

Beata Caranci, senior economist at TD Bank Financial Group, said she sees the Fed holding rates steady for an extended period.

She said consumer spending remains strong, keeping growth on track despite weakness in housing.

"Consumer spending growth will remain partially shielded from deteriorating wealth effects, and the economy will track a reasonably healthy, but still subpar 2.5 to 3.0 pct quarterly pace, before accelerating into 2008," Caranci said.

"In this environment, the Fed is unlikely to feel any urgency to cut rates."

:D :) :eek: :p :D

Lee