Say Anything Blog

More troubling than the naked political ambition fueling the Democrat cynicism about Iraq is the thought that the Democrat leadership was actually elected to public office. How is it that such abundant ignorance about world affairs and human nature could have risen so high?

It is abundantly ignorant of world affairs to not want to invade countries based on false intelligence?

Force the Dems to stand before the public and defend their strategy for failure. And while we are at it, I demand an end to America’s imperialist occupation of Germany,Japan,Korea, and the downtrodden countries of the Balkans. Warcrimes trial to commence imediately for the warmonger, William Jefferson Clinton, for his ill-advised and imperialist invasion of the former Yugoslav republics. There! That ought to be enough gasoline on the fire.

It is abundantly ignorant of world affairs to not want to invade countries based on false intelligence?

It’s abundantly ignorant of history to say that the only reason we invaded was based on false or trumped-up intelligence.  Review Bush’s big prewar speeches and review exactly how many different reasons were given that were not contradicted by post hoc knowledge.

Even the famous yellowcake comments has not be contradicted by facts.  You guys jumped on the bandwagon of Joe Wilson, who turned out to be a liar and a fraud, making claims in his public statements that were contradicted by his own report to the CIA. (As is well known, Wilson’s actual report supported the President’s statement.) But if you read leftie blog entries, one after the other still acts like Wilson’s falsehoods and deliberately misleading statements are facts, and Bush’s words are the lie.

And I should take you antiwar people seriously.... exactly why?  You can’t seem to get anything of a factual nature straight, including the implied assertions made in your comment.

Why does the GOP insist on wasting our time and money with these repeated, useless resolutions?  Next thing you know, they’ll want to get Congress involved in the BCS, Major League Baseball, and the “war on Christmas”.

They have been involved in those things, and many much more stupid things. What is the point of allowing senior Dems to evade having to stand before the voting public and defend their defeatist rhetoric? Who’s agenda is moved forward in that scenario? Who gains by our lack of resolve in the war against international terror? It damn sure ain’t us. I do not expect honest answers from you, MI, all we will see is more links to propaganda and juvenile, debate team drivel. So lets hear it.

Carrick, you seem to think all people opposed to the war are pacifist hippies. this war was a tactical mistake and has done nothing but encourage more people to be jihadists, in my opinion.

I don’t know why you are questioning people on the lefts facts? Your guy is in power, his facts are the ones that should be scrutinized, by the left and right. You keep going on about Joe Wilson, as if he came and changed our minds about the war.

Look, the bottom line is this war was sold to us on the basis that Saddam was an immediate threat to our security. If they would have sold it as the neo-con wet dream that it really was, public support would have been low.

Republicans sure are good at voting on pointless, symbolic measures that portray Decmorats badly.

Look, the bottom line is this war was sold to us on the basis that Saddam was an immediate threat to our security

To quote Ronald Reagan.

“There you go, again.”

Bush never said Saddam was an immediate threat. He said his regime was a ‘gathering danger.’ The whole point of pre-emptively striking states which openly support terrorism , like Saddam did, is to disable these regimes so they don’t get to a point where these states can become an immediate threat.

On a side note, have you ever waited until your roof started to leak before you decided to fix it?

Republicans sure are good at voting on pointless, symbolic measures that portray Decmorats badly.

From the perspective of efficiency and the actual business of government, calling a vote on a resolution that you’re not even going to vote for seems irresponsible.

Brandon:

Do you repair your roof while your house is on fire? ‘Cuz that what the for-profit war in Iraq is---ignoring the clear and present danger of al Qeada to concentrate on the possible future danger of Saddam.

Bush never said Saddam was an immediate threat. He said his regime was a ‘gathering danger.’

That’s actually two lies in one.

1) The Bush regime said over and over that Saddam was an immediate threat.

“We found the weapons of mass destruction, we found biological laboratories.”

---George W. Bush, 2003-05-29

“But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.”

---Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing, 2003-04-10

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he’s determined to make more._

---Colin Powell 2003-02-05

2) Those statements by the Bush regime were themselves lies, as has been proven over and over again.

To quote Ronald Reagan.

“There you go, again.”

When Reagan (head of the most corrupt American regime of the 20th Century) uttered those words, he was ducking a direct question about Medicare. He never did answer the question until he fucked Medicare up the ass.

Is that your role model for debate---a corrupt, inept puppet-president who supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and ducked simple and direct questions, time and time again?

Based on your support for Dubya, the answer is clearly “yes.”

[...] Really, though, I think this plays into something I said yesterday about the Dems and their stance on the war: They just want the issue to go away. If they come out in favor of finishing the training of Iraqi security forces before bringing the troops home they’ll alienate their anti-war base. If they come out in favor of bringing the troops home right away they look like a bunch of fools to the rest of America, especially in light of the successful elections held yesterday. [...]

GraemeA:

You keep going on about Joe Wilson, as if he came and changed our minds about the war.

Heh.  That one whizzed over your head, didn’t it?  Your comment was “It is abundantly ignorant of world affairs to not want to invade countries based on false intelligence?”

It’s not as abundantly clear as you make it out to be.  And if the yellowcake incident wasn’t an example of “false intelligence” (which implies faked or trumped-up intelligence), then exactly what is?

Look, the bottom line is this war was sold to us on the basis that Saddam was an immediate threat to our security.

And you know he wasn’t.... exactly why?  He was very dangerous to middle east stability, regardless of whether the intelligence on WMD stockpiles was accurate.

GreameA said, this war was a tactical mistake and has done nothing but encourage more people to be jihadists, in my opinion.

Well it is a good thing that those are just your opinions.

I don’t know why you are questioning people on the lefts facts? Your guy is in power, his facts are the ones that should be scrutinized, by the left and right.

So we’re supposed to ignore what comes out of the Democrats’ mouths?

If they would have sold it as the neo-con wet dream that it really was, public support would have been low.

We’re winning and you’re losing. Your bitter sounding comments reveal your agenda.

Don Myers drivels on, ‘Cuz that what the for-profit war in Iraq is—ignoring the clear and present danger of al Qeada to concentrate on the possible future danger of Saddam.

The war is “for-profit”? Prove it. We’re ignoring Al Qeada? Maybe because we’re focusing on Al Qaeda.

2) Those statements by the Bush regime were themselves lies, as has been proven over and over again.

You obviously need to look up the definition.

When Reagan (head of the most corrupt American regime of the 20th Century) uttered those words, he was ducking a direct question about Medicare. He never did answer the question until he fucked Medicare up the ass.

How did he do that? How was his administration “the most corrupt American regime of the 20th Century”? Are you going to tell us or can we expect more insulting drivel?

Is that your role model for debate—a corrupt, inept puppet-president who supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and ducked simple and direct questions, time and time again?

What useless drivel. Prove that we supplied Saddam with chemical weapons. Don’t duck this simple and direct question like you have been known to do time and time again. Back up your assertions.

Based on your support for Dubya, the answer is clearly “yes.”

An insulting close to a useless comment. Well done Don.