|
Post by Jack on May 13, 2004 0:12:37 GMT -5
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
- Colin Powell, February 2001
"A grave and gathering threat"
GWB, SOTU 2002
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2004 0:18:30 GMT -5
Ah...ok, so you don't like Bush, and you don't support the Democrats either. You don't live in a tiny cabin in Montana writing 10,000 word manuscripts that you send off to the New York Times, do you? Can you at least be civil? I try to answer your questions, defend my position, and you continue to heap insults on me. Do I have to choose a party? Can't I think for myself?
|
|
|
Post by Jack on May 13, 2004 0:37:28 GMT -5
If Bush is as stupid as you say he is, then Congress (yes, even those bleeding heart liberal tree-hugging, kumbaya singing, granola-eating, recycle-everything, everything is so rosy, Democrats you support) must be even MORE STUPID to have supported him. Can you give a proposed theory of HOW he lied to Congress and other world leaders? I mean, the intelligence coming out of Iraq prior to U.S. intervention did not just come from the CIA (which, you will say Bush had in his pocket to falsify data), but from multinational sources. As opposed to your support of reactionary, intolerant, redneck, bible thumping, milquetoast Republicans? (Since we're hurling colorful generalizations here). The information/data did not and does not support those claims the adminstration made re: Iraq and the peril to the US. Either he is stupid or he deliberately lied. It is the commander-in-chief's responsibility to weigh the evidence to support a pre-emptive war. The Iraq agenda was set in motion well before 9/11. It was not official administration policy. In fact the threat of Saddam was consistently played down. It was realpolitik: Pre-Sept.11 an Iraq war would not have been feasible and would've lacked support. It wasn't until 9/11 that Rumsfeld and other Neo-cons (Perle, Wolfowitz, etc) seized their moment.
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on May 13, 2004 1:06:48 GMT -5
Islandgirl, you are not only delusional but obsessed as well. First you say you're no longer going to respond to my posts untill I "grow up". Then you seek attention from me by responding to my posts. This "I love him, I love him not" phase that you are going through is embarrassing. There is only one person embarrassing themselves and that is you. This is nothing more than a game to me. You take yourself to seriously Islandgirl, Loosen up! Obviously you're the one with the problem. I'm laughing too, not with you, AT YOU. ;D. Btw, thanks for the spelling correction. I stand corrected. Oh, thanks for the "You go girl" remark. If you are trying to insult me, you need to do a better job. I don't have self esteem issues. Like I said before, LameOh, you are WAAAYYYY too easy. With each post you reaffirm your lameness. Delusional? Doctor heal thyself. Obsessed? In your dreams, Stumpy. Sorry, while I have nothing against short people, I'm really not into boys suffering from Shortboy's complex. Thanks for the laughs though.
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on May 13, 2004 1:17:51 GMT -5
I don't have self esteem issues. Now THAT is especially funny! ;D Who are you trying to convince, Shortstuff? I can picture you standing up straight looking in a car's sideview mirror when you repeat that and adding on, "...and Gosh Darnit! People like me!"
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 13, 2004 1:22:59 GMT -5
Like I said before, LameOh, you are WAAAYYYY too easy. With each post you reaffirm your lameness. Delusional? Doctor heal thyself. Obsessed? In your dreams, Stumpy. Sorry, while I have nothing against short people, I'm really not into boys suffering from Shortboy's complex. Thanks for the laughs though. I don't have a shortboy complex, sorry to disappoint you. No, thank YOU for the laughs, from all of us. ;D If you want to waste your time trying to insult me, that's your problem but you are wasting your time. Your feeble attempts at an insult make me laugh, it's cute. Someone (name witheld) told me I should be flattered by your obsession but it makes me uncomfortable so please find another object for your affection. I'm not interested. ;D
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on May 13, 2004 1:33:25 GMT -5
I don't have a shortboy complex, sorry to disappoint you. No, thank YOU for the laughs, from all of us. Uhhhh huhhh. Most people with complexes adamantly insist they don't have them. Come on now, your posts are pretty revealing. Lol. All of us? You have multiple personalities on top of everything else? I should have guessed.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 13, 2004 1:53:30 GMT -5
Uhhhh huhhh. Most people with complexes adamantly insist they don't have them. Come on now, your posts are pretty revealing. Lol. All of us? You have multiple personalities on top of everything else? I should have guessed. Lol! Still trying? Btw, You'd be rather embarrassed if you knew who "all of us" were. Now........ Your clue meter is reading zero; lets see if this registers: get lost! there are other members of the board for you to flirt with.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 13, 2004 1:55:59 GMT -5
You really haven't been paying attention, have you B? His intention from the very start of his term was to get Saddam. It was personal for him. For BunkerBoy. For the Rumster. For Wolfie. And this is about the 20th time I've answered your question. Oh (R)uffda, your paranoia will get the best of you one of these days.
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on May 13, 2004 2:09:56 GMT -5
Btw, You'd be rather embarrassed if you knew who "all of us" were. LOL! Yeah right. Btw, no, I wouldn't. Fortunately, I don't have to live in your delusional little world. Give it up, LameOh. Don't you ever tire of embarrassing yourself? How many times do I have to tell you that repeating your wishful thoughts over and over doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 13, 2004 2:27:13 GMT -5
LOL! Yeah right. Btw, no, I wouldn't. Fortunately, I don't have to live in your delusional little world. Actually they just left. Nobody you know, just a bunch of guys who got a kick out of the thread. Give it up, LameOh. Don't you ever tire of embarassing yourself? How many times do I have to tell you that repeating your wishful thoughts over and over doesn't make it true. Nah, I love the rush of "embarrassing" myself. I'll never tire of it. ;D I went over my thoughts, you weren't in them. Sorry I can't return your affection. Now move along missy. There are other fishes in the sea to be caught.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on May 13, 2004 2:28:09 GMT -5
A letter from PNAC ("Project for the New American Century") to President Clinton 5 years before the US invaded Iraq last march. Key members of PNAC: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. They've been advocating military action against Iraq for years. They themselves claimed that it would be impossible to tell whether Iraq had WMD's. Yet suddenly last year they had irrefutable evidence that Iraq had WMD's and used that evidence in pushing forward the invasion of Iraq. Evidence that has still not been verified. They were already putting forth Iraq's oil supply as a reason for military action. Like BiK is fond of doing at times I've decided to do some highlighting within the letter. ------------------ January 26, 1998The Honorable William J. Clinton President of the United States Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. Sincerely, Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on May 13, 2004 2:30:17 GMT -5
I went over my thoughts... With some sort of shredder? Are you now missing more or less time than Nixon's tape?
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on May 13, 2004 2:38:47 GMT -5
Nah, I love the rush of "embarrassing" myself. I'll never tire of it. ;D I went over my thoughts, you weren't in them. Sorry I can't return your affection. Are you still here, Stumpy? Oh that's right you live here. Well, my work is done here. Like I said, you're way too easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. I've had my fun for the day. Thanks again for laughs, LameOh!
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 13, 2004 3:01:34 GMT -5
Are you still here, Stumpy? Oh that's right you live here. It has certainly been the case over the past few days, no arguments from me. Well, my work is done here. Like I said, you're way too easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. I've had my fun for the day. Thanks again for laughs, LameOh! Too easy? Lol! funny, I heard the same thing about you. Remember Islandgirl, there are other guys out there, don't get discouraged. You might want to loosen up a little first. ;D
|
|