You must have plenty of time on your hands, dis. :lol:
Disagreeable said:
We didn't need to have the Iraqi war. That's the bottom line. If this Administration had shown us we needed a war, they should have prepared the American people for a war.
The American people were prepared for war. So was Congress. Remember all of the support? Liberals just have short memories when politics presents opportunities. That's a fact.
And unfortunately, Americans haven't much patience for long-term projects, either. They don't have the resolve to stand the losses. They don't want to be inconvenienced. They don't want any disruptions in their cozy little lives. Sad, but true.
Instead, Bush gave away the Federal surplus, mostly to the richest people in this country! That's..that's... I don't have a word that should be used on this board to describe the disgust I feel for this Administration.
Just like I said...you hate him. For whatever the reason that comes into your mind at the time. Whatever is most convenient for you. The surplus wasn't just manna from Heaven. It didn't just suddenly appear. People were overtaxed. That's why we have surpluses. I resent that. I want my money back and I want the richest people in the country to have their money back, too.
I've told you before that you are more than welcome to send in extra money if it is so important to you. Put your money where your mouth is. But you don't ever do that, do you? :lol:
I don't hate George W. Bush. I hate what he's done to this country. It has noting to do with "conservative principles" whatever that is. Do you think George Bush represents "conservative priniples?"
It's obvious that you are consumed by hatred and bitterness, dis. And it comes as no surprise that you know nothing about conservative principles. As for your question, he's certainly not conservative enough for me.
That you can support a man who knowingly led us to an unnecessary war, pushed our natural allies away, lied about wiretapping American citizens, lied about expecting the levies in New Orleans to hold, gave aides permission to leak classified information to the media, while publically claiming he hated leakers, shows we do have serious differences.
We'll never know if the Iraq war was unnecessary, dis. Because it's a done deal now. Easy for you to make your wild claims. Natural allies? Like who? France? Germany?
ROTFLMAO!
The levees? Some 'intelligence' indicated there could be trouble. Some 'intelligence' showed the opposite. Sorta like Iraq. Except when it comes to saving the bums in New Orleans, you expected him to err on the side of caution. Typically hypocritical of you, dis. Typical.
And let's see evidence of those leak claims, dis. Evidence that leads to convictions. Washington is full of leaks. No denying that it happens. If national security or lives were compromised for politics, I expect something to be done about it no matter who is in the White House.
Disagreeable said:
X said:
Do you really believe that this President is so shallow and immature as to waste the lives, risk our military resources and spend the money for something personal?
Yes.
I guess that just shows how you and your kind think, dis. If you think somebody would actually do that, it must be because
you would. Sad.
Congress saw the intelligence information that Bush allowed them to see. They didn't see much of the information that suggested Saddam was not a threat to the country.
Threat assessments don't depend on negatives, dis. You don't dwell on mitigation. When a pack of coyotes are stalking a baby calf, you react to the threat, to the possible end result. You don't assume that they MIGHT just be wanting to play with him. You don't assume that they are merely babysitting. You shoot the alpha male first and try to get some more before they get out of range. And when somebody wants to kick your ass, it is best to prepare, best to be proactive. Not look for excuses why they might not kick it.
:lol: Right: you're more rational. Not likely.
Not only likely, but a FACT. I can do a poll if you'd like? :lol:
I'm ready for you to show me that George W. Bush didn't know Saddam wasn't a threat. I've posted a multitude of articles, government reports, that show otherwise. Let's see your facts, articles, government reports that show me Saddam was a threat to this country.
'Didn't know Saddam wasn't'? You want proof of two negatives? dis, every time Cal, PT, LB and others have posted these things, you have either ignored them, or tried to attack the source. You're not interested in objectivity or even listening to an opposing view. Just like you did with my post, you didn't even really think about it. You were too busy thinking and planning your responses as you went along. You never even took the time to try to understand what I was saying. You are only interested in defending your hatred of President Bush.
I disagree with you on almost everything, dis. But I'm not one of the ones that would like to see you banned here. I think dissent is important, but it would be nice if you would tone it down some. Not gunna happen, I know. And at least I DO read your posts. I read them and think about them before responding. I used to not be that way, but I've tried to change. Call it objectivity? Try it sometimes. Try reading someone's thoughts and pausing long enough to consider another point of view before you go on the attack. Try it.
Why did George W. Bush tell the UN inspectors to get out of Iraq so he could invade? A few more days, weeks, they could have told us there were no WMDs, yet he stopped their work. Why did he do that?
Ummm...so they wouldn't get their asses blown off? That horseshit about 'a few more days' had already been going on forever. Remember all the UN resolutions that Saddam just ignored? You like to forget those, don't you? And the inspectors only went where Saddam allowed them to go. How reliable is that for oversight?
I say it's because he didn't want what he already knew to be known by the American people and Congress. Then he wouldn't have had his war.
I say it's because he didn't want to be responsible for them getting blown to hell or taken hostage and used by Saddam.
Hype. I think President Bush sees himself caught by his own lies and misrepresentations. He'd like to let this dirty little war go away. But it's the elephant in the room for this country and he can't distance himself from it.
Not hype. It just shows that you aren't even interested in the opinions of others. Some people still have vivid memories of 9/11. I think George W. Bush is one of them. I think those memories influence his every decision. I'm glad of that.
Show me some intelligence that showed Iraq was a threat to the US. Virtually every important piece of evidence that Bush used to scare us into this war has been discredited: WMDs, uranium from Niger, Curveball... Saddam was not able to attack the United States. He was not a threat to this country. There were no terrorists' camps in Iraq. You're repeating the same tired old stuff that has long been discredited.
As I stated above, many things have been posted here. You just ignore them if it's something that you don't want to hear.
I listened to the speeches, I read the newspapers, I watched the news on TV and I never believed Saddam was a threat. And I'm not any smarter than anyone else. I'm apparently just more criticial than most.
:lol2: Apparently, you're smarter than all the dems in Washington that supported the War. That's a pretty good list, I'm sure you've seen it. Why didn't you use your influence to lean on them and tell them they were wrong?
I also have a close relation with the US Army and don't think our soldiers should be used carelessly. Bush has failed our military.
Ah! A close relation with the Army, huh? Now things are starting to make more sense. Now we're getting somewhere. Tell us more about your 'close relation' so we'll know what makes you tick. I don't have a 'close relation' with the US Army. Tell us more about yours. Maybe we can learn something.
I'll say it again, because you seem to have so much problem with it: Saddam Hussein, the dictator in Iraq, was not involved in 9/11. He wasn't involved with Bin Laden anywhere. Yes, they had some contacts, but never worked together. So to keep bringing up the 9/11 attack as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq is a false argument.
I'll say it again, because YOU seem to have so much problem with it:
I think 9/11 has everything to do with us being in Iraq. Because this President was simply not willing to take the chance that a crackpot leader that hates Americans, like Saddam did and still does, would not be involved with another 9/11 type attack on us. The risks were too great. Unlike you and your liberal cohorts, George W. Bush hasn't fogotten 9/11.
I'm done with you now, dis. Don't waste your time doing any more post dissections with my posts. Nobody else wants to wade through all of this junk. Besides...I don't have the time to try to keep up with you. :lol:
By the way, I still agree with you on one thing. Even one is too many...
