Israel may do "it" for us.....

[LakeAriel]

Whatever. I thought it was pretty much accepted that we don't do that to each other here. Make your point another way.

I didn't think you could do it! I have seen some use so called satire to alter speeches, to me it is no different..as long as it was stated it was changed.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

I didn't think you could do it! I have seen some use so called satire to alter speeches, to me it is no different..as long as it was stated it was changed.

Do what?? Quit mixing apples and oranges. I could give a rip about using satire, but when people have changed quotes on here before it's not been accepted kindly by anyone, regardless of party affiliation. It's rude because some people scan threads/posts and could see it and accept it as the posters actual words. That is not cool in my opinion. Think what you will.

 

[LuvDuke]

Everyone in Iran is also looking at Bush doing what he said he would do: Stay until the job is done. That could make a big difference to those who are waiting for the right opertunity to do something. They see the U.S as actually staying around to try to fix what went wrong.

Interesting analysis.

 

[Papa Deuce]

Is **** being filtered?? I love me some good ****.

Apparently.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Apparently.

You jerk!!

 

[Papa Deuce]

Wow, how rude to change someone's quote.

Uh oh......

 

[reeeoga]

Uh oh......

Doesn't bother me as long as the post is labeled as being changed. I wouldn't do it, but

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Doesn't bother me as long as the post is labeled as being changed. I wouldn't do it, but

Yeah cause you're a lover, not a fighter.

 

[reeeoga]

Yeah cause you're a lover, not a fighter.

Naa, it's cuse I'm a Jerk.

 

[richiebaseball]

The 101st keyboard division, along with the 82nd watercooler warriors, are starting up their GI Joe fantasies again.

What's that I hear? The cooing of chickendoves?

 

[reeeoga]

What's that I hear? The cooing of chickendoves?

Now that is a bit mean. Luvduke is a Dove, but she ain't no chicken as evident by her posts.

 

[LuvDuke]

Now that is a bit mean. Luvduke is a Dove, but she ain't no chicken as evident by her posts.

Certainly no spring chicken.

 

[GeorgeG]

There really no easy answers to this situation. It's easy to say we should go to war with Iran or other countries and it's also easy to say we should get out, stay out, and never go to war again. At best, it's a politically no win situation.

The war on terrorism is not limited to Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, or even a dozen other countries. In fact, it's not even so much a war against any country, but against a faction of radical Muslims who work out of any number of countries, including The United States. One estimate I've heard is that 25% of the world is Muslim. That's a lot! How many of that 25% belong to this radical faction that wants to killl all non-Muslims is anyone's guess, but I would imagine it's a smalll percentage, albiet significant enough to be a threat to the world in general.

So, why should we be at war in (as opposed to against) Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, or a handful of other countries? Because it's within those countries that the enemy finds support, if not complete government backing. The enemy is not about to surrender, ever, but we can make it difficult for them to exist. We can do that where they live or we can wait and surely have to deal with them where we live. See, there are choices... go ahead... choose.

As for Bush "lying," that's not fair. The intelligence provided him and all the other government leaders, including Hillary and her co-horts, was not accurate. That happens. Back in June of 1944 thousands of Allied servicemen died at Normandy because of faulty intelligence, but nobody ever accused President Roosevelt or General Eisenhower of lying.

War sucks, but when it's necessary it's far better to fight in someone else's backyard. Think about that the next time your kids are playing in your backyard. And for the comments about "armchair warriors," I am a Vietnam Veteran

 

[Charade]

Uh oh......

Trust me when I say it's not a nice thing to do. SORRY!!!

 

[salmoneous]

So, why should we be at war in (as opposed to against) Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, or a handful of other countries? Because it's within those countries that the enemy finds support, if not complete government backing.

Note that by going to war in Iraq, we turned a country that had only minor of ties to terrorism and turned it into a terrorist playground and training camp. Just because something is bad doesn't mean that going to war is the right answer.

We can do that where they live or we can wait and surely have to deal with them where we live.

Going to war in Iraq, and keeping our soldiers involved in the Iraqi Civil war does nothing to keep terrorists from attacking the US.

As for Bush "lying," that's not fair.

Sure it is. He lied. His top aides lied. Why isn't it fair to call them liars? Note that he didn't just lie then, he continues to lie now. In the run up to the November 2006 elections, Bush continued to tell the American people that we were on the right track in Iraq. Now he tells us that he knew for months before that that we needed a change. The guy lies.

The intelligence provided him and all the other government leaders, including Hillary and her co-horts, was not accurate.

Two important points here. First, let's understand that the intelligence that Bush had was different that the intelligence provided to Hillary Clinton.

Second - and here's the kicker - Bush lied to the American people about the intelligence he received. Yes, the intelligence was flawed, but Bush compounded the issue by lying about it. He read intelligence that was full of doubt, and told the American people there was no doubt. His top aides lied. Sec Rice read reports that many in the intelligence community felt Iraq's aluminum tubes were for rocket parts. She told us they couldn't be used for rocket parts and were suitable only for nuclear weapons production. She lied. Why isn't it fair to point that out?

but nobody ever accused President Roosevelt or General Eisenhower of lying.

Because as far as I know, they didn't lie to the American people about the intelligence. See the difference?

I am a Vietnam Veteran

Thank you for your service.

 

[LuvDuke]

As for Bush "lying," that's not fair. The intelligence provided him and all the other government leaders, including Hillary and her co-horts, was not accurate. That happens. Back in June of 1944 thousands of Allied servicemen died at Normandy because of faulty intelligence, but nobody ever accused President Roosevelt or General Eisenhower of lying.

The reason why no one accused FDR and Eisenhower of lying was because they didn't.

Not so with George Bush. The intelligence he presented to Congress and the American people had been massaged and cherrypicked to reflect what he wanted it to reflect.

A group, headed by Douglas Feith, was set up specifically to "reasses" the intelligence presented by the CIA. Needless to say, they never once presented the idea that the CIA intelligence was going too far to link Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16656258.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html

Those 16 words regarding Saddam Hussein and the Niger deal was taken out by the CIA and then put back righ before the SOTU.

You may not like Hillary Clinton and her "cohorts" but you cannot rewrite history. And the history of how George Bush lied his country into a war is there for anyone who wants to read it.

War sucks, but when it's necessary it's far better to fight in someone else's backyard. Think about that the next time your kids are playing in your backyard. And for the comments about "armchair warriors," I am a Vietnam Veteran

War doubly sucks when it's unnecessary and the war in Iraq was an unnecessary war brought about by liars coasting on the dust of 9/11. The war in Iraq has accomplished nothing and will accomplish nothing.

And for the comments about "armchair warriors," I am a Vietnam Veteran

Thank you for your service. You above all ought to understand what happens to a country when their leaders lie about a war.

 

[reeeoga]

The reason why no one accused FDR and Eisenhower of lying was because they didn't.

Not so with George Bush. The intelligence he presented to Congress and the American people had been massaged and cherrypicked to reflect what he wanted it to reflect.

A group, headed by Douglas Feith, was set up specifically to "reasses" the intelligence presented by the CIA. Needless to say, they never once presented the idea that the CIA intelligence was going too far to link Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16656258.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html

Those 16 words regarding Saddam Hussein and the Niger deal was taken out by the CIA and then put back righ before the SOTU.

You may not like Hillary Clinton and her "cohorts" but you cannot rewrite history. And the history of how George Bush lied his country into a war is there for anyone who wants to read it.



War doubly sucks when it's unnecessary and the war in Iraq was an unnecessary war brought about by liars coasting on the dust of 9/11. The war in Iraq has accomplished nothing and will accomplish nothing.



Thank you for your service. You above all ought to understand what happens to a country when their leaders lie about a war.

The 16 words are still being backed by the British Intelegence services. They say it is based on provable fact. I have not seen anyone dispute what the British say about that aspect of "The Speach". Is there a credable dispute to that part?

 

[LuvDuke]

The 16 words are still being backed by the British Intelegence services. They say it is based on provable fact. I have not seen anyone dispute what the British say about that aspect of "The Speach". Is there a credable dispute to that part?

The CIA told the Bush administration not to use the "16 words" because there wasn't enough evidence to make the claim credible. They were removed and the put back again right before the SOTU.

A lie of ommission is still a lie. By specifically referencing "British intelligence", he tried to create the impression that the evidence was there. He knew full well that the CIA thought otherwise, but failed to mention that to the American people. That is a lie of ommission. Bush lied.

The "British intelligence" reference may be justification enough for some, but it sure as hell isn't the way to take your country to war. Frankly, my first thought when I heard "British intelligence" was "why the hell is he talking about British intelligence"? Now we know why: Bush was BS'ing his way to war.

 

[reeeoga]

The CIA told the Bush administration not to use the "16 words" because there wasn't enough evidence to make the claim credible. They were removed and the put back again right before the SOTU.

A lie of ommission is still a lie. By specifically referencing "British intelligence", he tried to create the impression that the evidence was there. He knew full well that the CIA thought otherwise, but failed to mention that to the American people. That is a lie of ommission. Bush lied.

The "British intelligence" reference may be justification enough for some, but it sure as hell isn't the way to take your country to war. Frankly, my first thought when I heard "British intelligence" was "why the hell is he talking about British intelligence"? Now we know why: Bush was BS'ing his way to war.

He was talking about British Intel. Because that is where the Info came from. My understanding is that the CIA didn't have info from their sources, so they didn't back that part.

 

[dcentity2000]

British Intel

Juxtaposition.





Rich::