Disagreeable is missing so can't rub his nose in this

[Cal]

Same old Cal and Steve. You read those opinions that you agree with and think the rest of the country feels that way, too. They don't.

I'll bold this and put it in caps; you seemed to have missed it: BUSH NEVER CLAIMED THERE WERE TERRORIST IN IRAQ OR THAT SADDAM CAUSED 9-11. HE SAID SADDAM HAD WMDS. THAT WAS THE RATIONAL FOR HIS INVASION OF A SMALL COUNTRY THAT WAS NO THREAT TO THE US. Keep spinning, but the polls show more and more Americans are catching on to the Bush Bunch.

The 9-11 commission said there was no link between Saddam and 9-11. The Senate investigation said there was no link between Saddam and 9-11. BUSH has said there is no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, and yet in his speeches, he invokes 9-11 as an excuse for this war in Iraq. Truthfully, his blatent use of the worst tragedy this country has ever suffered, makes me smile. It shows that the White House is beginning to feel the heat.

Bush has to come back to Washington sooner or later. When he does, it's not going to be pretty. His Social Security "reform" blew up in his face. His own party is calling for a time table for Iraq withdrawal...

Go to www.whitehouse.gov and reread the text to speeches and radio addresses leading up to the war if you don't think that torture and murder of Iraqi citizens, as well as links to terrorists weren't part of the equation for declaring war on Iraq. While you're at it, you should be able to find text to see what the intelligence on Iraq was during the Clinton years as well.

 

[Disagreeable]

Go to www.whitehouse.gov and reread the text to speeches and radio addresses leading up to the war if you don't think that torture and murder of Iraqi citizens, as well as links to terrorists weren't part of the equation for declaring war on Iraq. While you're at it, you should be able to find text to see what the intelligence on Iraq was during the Clinton years as well.

Show me a link, Cal, to a speech to Congress that calls for the invasion of Iraq because of Saddam's torture and terrorist in Iraq.

The American people would never have approved going to war with Iraq if Bush hadn't painted Saddam as part of 9-11 and that he had WMDs. His stress on terrorist/Iraq was that Saddam would give WMDs to terrorists and they would bring them to the US.

Bush made the same pitch to the UN for their support and the UN didn't buy it. Colin Powell later apologized to the UN and citizens of the US because he used bad "intelligence" to call for the Iraqi war. But he has never, ever apologized for supporting the war.

Here's a website that has plenty of references: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts

"100 Facts and 1 Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration"

It's an interesting read for someone who really is trying to consider if the Iraqi war is necessary.

And another: http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM

 

[Cal]

Show me a link, Cal, to a speech to Congress that calls for the invasion of Iraq because of Saddam's torture and terrorist in Iraq.

Show me a link where Saddam's murderous, torturous activities and history and/or terrorism links are omitted from calls for the invasion of Iraq in a speech to Congress.

 

[mp.freelance]

Disagreeable,

When you support your facts with ultra-left wing sites like American Progress and the Nation, it doesn't really mean much to me or anyone else. You may as well be pulling them out of your a...

 

[mp.freelance]

I looked over your links regardless, and found them to be very similar to a Michael Moore film: mindless polemic in which certain facts are rearranged and distorted to present an argument that doesn't convince anyone, but only serves to rile up the far left and satiate their self-righteousness.

What about the oil-for-food scandal? Do you think that may have had something to do with France and other nations' foot-dragging and demands for inspections?

Was it really that big of a stretch to think that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - considering that there was documentation he used these weapons against the Kurdish uprising after the first Gulf War? Or are you going to pull a tactic similar to those who deny the holocaust and tell me that the gassing of the Kurds never happened?

 

[DOC HARRIS]

I looked over your links regardless, and found them to be very similar to a Michael Moore film: mindless polemic in which certain facts are rearranged and distorted to present an argument that doesn't convince anyone, but only serves to rile up the far left and satiate their self-righteousness.

What about the oil-for-food scandal? Do you think that may have had something to do with France and other nations' foot-dragging and demands for inspections?

Was it really that big of a stretch to think that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - considering that there was documentation he used these weapons against the Kurdish uprising after the first Gulf War? Or are you going to pull a tactic similar to those who deny the holocaust and tell me that the gassing of the Kurds never happened?

You have it right, mp.freelance - this is a continuing episode of my previous references to "RICOCHET' Liberal Democrat political ploys! You have REALLY hit this nail square. Good for you! - - - - and while I am thinking about this "--no WMD's found -blah - blah - blah" - - think about this: not having FOUND WMD's does NOT mean that they are not in Iraq - or Iran - or (can you say - SYRIA??) or SOMEWHERE! HELLO! :shock: The Lib's are riding this 'no WMD's' to death. Another Ricochet bullet. Keep your eyes and ears OPEN, Folks!

 

[Liberty Belle]

DOC HARRIS, mp.freelance and Cal - right on!! This letter to the editor was in the Rapid City Journal this morning and has some facts that are hard to argue with... but I'm sure old disagreeable will try, unless all the good stuff you loaded on to him has him scared off again.

Saw same reports

President George Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq and al-Qaida, right along with all of the Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. All who saw the same intelligence reports as did our president!

Toss out facts that there were huge amounts of WMDs inventoried and catalogued following Desert Storm by the U.N. inspectors unaccounted for! Neglect the fact that Sadaam supported terrorists equally as dangerous with sworn allegiance to al-Qaida and who have sworn to destroy America!

So we acted pre-emptively. It would have been nice if we had gone into Japan before Pearl Harbor before that German ally bombed us!

Don't you people ever learn from history? It is pure idiocy for anyone to think Saddam did not intend to use his WMDs or give them to those who would. The real mystery is where the WMDs went, not that is wasn't in Iraq!

Our troops are not there to kill women and children but those terrorists are! I for one do not want the fight to be on our soil, do you?

How did the intelligence get so bad? Your Democratic darlings John Kerry and company who slashed the intelligence budget during the Clinton years.

JOHN A. BEARDSLEY

Rapid City

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable,

When you support your facts with ultra-left wing sites like American Progress and the Nation, it doesn't really mean much to me or anyone else. You may as well be pulling them out of your a...

So, tell me, mp, where should I get information that you would respect?

 

[Disagreeable]

Re: Lliberty Belle's post: A LETTER TO THE EDITOR!!! Now that's some reference material!!! :lol: :lol:

 

[Disagreeable]

I looked over your links regardless, and found them to be very similar to a Michael Moore film: mindless polemic in which certain facts are rearranged and distorted to present an argument that doesn't convince anyone, but only serves to rile up the far left and satiate their self-righteousness.

Would you like to take these "facts" on and argue with some real references?

What about the oil-for-food scandal? Do you think that may have had something to do with France and other nations' foot-dragging and demands for inspections?

:roll: Spin all you want. The FACT is that Bush has called off the search for WMDs. Neither of his two hand picked inspectors found WMDs. David Kay's report said something to the effect that "we were all wrong." No one has found a viable WMD program in Iraq. I've said from the beginning of this invasion that if Saddam had WMDs, he'd use them. He didn't.

Was it really that big of a stretch to think that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - considering that there was documentation he used these weapons against the Kurdish uprising after the first Gulf War? Or are you going to pull a tactic similar to those who deny the holocaust and tell me that the gassing of the Kurds never happened?

It was too big of a stretch for me. You don't just send Americans off to kill and die without proof and, even though he claimed that he did, Bush never had proof of WMDs in Iraq. You don't just invade another country on a whim or so your pals can tie up oil rights. George W. Bush used the worst disaster this country has ever suffered, 9-11, as an excuse to attack a soverign country for no reason at all. I won't forgive him for that and polls tell me that more and more Americans are agreeing with me.

There's a leaked memo from Britain recently claiming we'll pull half our troops out of Iraq this fall. I hope it's true; but doubt that the Iraqi Army will be fully trained by then.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

DOC HARRIS, mp.freelance and Cal - right on!! This letter to the editor was in the Rapid City Journal this morning and has some facts that are hard to argue with... but I'm sure old disagreeable will try, unless all the good stuff you loaded on to him has him scared off again.

Saw same reports

President George Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq and al-Qaida, right along with all of the Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. All who saw the same intelligence reports as did our president!

Toss out facts that there were huge amounts of WMDs inventoried and catalogued following Desert Storm by the U.N. inspectors unaccounted for! Neglect the fact that Sadaam supported terrorists equally as dangerous with sworn allegiance to al-Qaida and who have sworn to destroy America!

So we acted pre-emptively. It would have been nice if we had gone into Japan before Pearl Harbor before that German ally bombed us!

Don't you people ever learn from history? It is pure idiocy for anyone to think Saddam did not intend to use his WMDs or give them to those who would. The real mystery is where the WMDs went, not that is wasn't in Iraq!

Our troops are not there to kill women and children but those terrorists are! I for one do not want the fight to be on our soil, do you?

How did the intelligence get so bad? Your Democratic darlings John Kerry and company who slashed the intelligence budget during the Clinton years.

JOHN A. BEARDSLEY

Rapid City

Liberty Belle - Congratulations! This editorial is great - but the IMPORTANT factor about this post is - YOU were astute enough to read it, understand it, and present it to others who may not have seen it! ACCURATE knowledge and comprehension are the weapons of choice in the war of words and thought. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to discuss Truth and Facts with those who refuse to think and learn. The Liberal Left has been brain-washed to the degree that they CANNOT and WILL NOT try to think logically and reasonably about whatever others attempt to discuss with them. Actually, if you think about it, it is a form of Hypnotism. They will ricochet and attempt to change the subject every chance that they get! It is interesting to watch the 'talking heads' on TV and observe how they 'twist' the facts and try to change the subject! Enjoy the game, - - and laugh at them! They don't like to laughed at because they know they have LOST their power (and MONEY), and they are scared they are going to loose more - hence - panic and - RICOCHET! DOC HARRIS

 

[mp.freelance]

Disagreeable,

You have a right to your opinions, but it seems to me that you are really just repeating the same thing over and over without actually engaging in debate.

Why didn't you answer my question about the Oil For Food scandal? Don't you think this points to disingenuity on the part of countries who were against the war? Mind you, most everyone believed Saddam had WMD - even France - but some preferred to employ more inspections rather than go to war. The fact is, everybody knew it was very possible. The only difference was the amount of risk they were willing to take: Europe was willing to deal with a WMD equipped Saddam, and the U.S. wasn't. Saddam himself was sending mixed signals about his WMD potential because he wanted to keep his neighbors intimidated.

As to the gassing of the Kurds and other acts of Saddam's genocide: you deflect responding to these questions in a direct way, and prefer to resort to the same argument: "not enough proof to send Americans into war."

Even if there were no WMD at the time of the invasion, we know he had them before, and would have them again if given the opportunity.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Re: Lliberty Belle's post: A LETTER TO THE EDITOR!!! Now that's some reference material!!! :lol: :lol:

Falls in a more reliable catagory than :twisted: disagreeables :twisted: posts. I haven't read any of his (or her) "letters to a newspaper Editor". I guess they wouldn't print his (or her) stuff!

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Disagreeable,

You have a right to your opinions, but it seems to me that you are really just repeating the same thing over and over without actually engaging in debate.

Why didn't you answer my question about the Oil For Food scandal? Don't you think this points to disingenuity on the part of countries who were against the war? Mind you, most everyone believed Saddam had WMD - even France - but some preferred to employ more inspections rather than go to war. The fact is, everybody knew it was very possible. The only difference was the amount of risk they were willing to take: Europe was willing to deal with a WMD equipped Saddam, and the U.S. wasn't. Saddam himself was sending mixed signals about his WMD potential because he wanted to keep his neighbors intimidated.

As to the gassing of the Kurds and other acts of Saddam's genocide: you deflect responding to these questions in a direct way, and prefer to resort to the same argument: "not enough proof to send Americans into war."

Even if there were no WMD at the time of the invasion, we know he had them before, and would have them again if given the opportunity.

mp.freelance - you make my repeated points regarding :twisted: disagreeable :twisted:. What he persists in doing is - RICOCHET - Change the subject - avoid direct eye contact. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: It's "The GAME!"

 

[Disagreeable]

doc said:

Liberty Belle - Congratulations! This editorial is great - but the IMPORTANT factor about this post is - YOU were astute enough to read it, understand it, and present it to others who may not have seen it! ACCURATE knowledge and comprehension are the weapons of choice in the war of words and thought. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to discuss Truth and Facts with those who refuse to think and learn. The Liberal Left has been brain-washed to the degree that they CANNOT and WILL NOT try to think logically and reasonably about whatever others attempt to discuss with them. Actually, if you think about it, it is a form of Hypnotism. They will ricochet and attempt to change the subject every chance that they get! It is interesting to watch the 'talking heads' on TV and observe how they 'twist' the facts and try to change the subject! Enjoy the game, - - and laugh at them! They don't like to laughed at because they know they have LOST their power (and MONEY), and they are scared they are going to loose more - hence - panic and - RICOCHET! DOC HARRIS

Excuse me, Doc, but this was not an editoral. It was a letter to the editor. Apparently you aren't "astute" enough to read the posting, understand it and present it to others. Apparently you're the one who can't see the "truth and facts."

Oh, if you don't understand the difference in an "editoral" and a "letter to the editor," let me know. I can explain it to you.

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable,

You have a right to your opinions, but it seems to me that you are really just repeating the same thing over and over without actually engaging in debate.

Not here to engage in debate. Cal claimed to be rubbing my nose in "it". I've pointed out that everything that I said would happen in the Iraqi war has come to pass. No WMDs, civil war, military mis-deeds, loss of support among the people in the US. All of those things have come about.

Why didn't you answer my question about the Oil For Food scandal? Don't you think this points to disingenuity on the part of countries who were against the war? Mind you, most everyone believed Saddam had WMD - even France - but some preferred to employ more inspections rather than go to war. The fact is, everybody knew it was very possible. The only difference was the amount of risk they were willing to take: Europe was willing to deal with a WMD equipped Saddam, and the U.S. wasn't. Saddam himself was sending mixed signals about his WMD potential because he wanted to keep his neighbors intimidated.

The oil for food scandle has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Why didn't you acknowledge there are no WMDs in Iraq? You continue to spin, but the fact is the fact: there were no WMDs. Saddam had allowed inspectors back in Iraq. Bush ordered them out. Why didn't he wait for their report? Because then he wouldn't have had an excuse to invade. He had nothing to justify the invasion except WMDs. He has tried to tie the invasion to terrorists in Iraq, but every official report says there were no terrorist threat in Iraq. He has tried to tie Iraq to 9-11, but has, himself, been forced to admit there's no such proof. The only thing he had to justify the invasion of Iraq was the threat of WMDs. If he waited for the UN inspectors to finish their inspection and say what David Kay said "no WMDs" he would have had no war. So he told the inspectors to get out and invaded. And, by the way, he sent our Army in undermanned and underequipped for this conflict. I won't forgive him for that. You shouldn't either.

As to the gassing of the Kurds and other acts of Saddam's genocide: you deflect responding to these questions in a direct way, and prefer to resort to the same argument: "not enough proof to send Americans into war."

Saddam was a cruel dictator. No one denies that. We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam gassed the Kurds or killed thousands of his own citizens. Those have nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. You're trying to change the subject. My subject is that George W. Bush knowingly led this country into an unnecessary war for the benefit of his oil friends and his own ego.

Even if there were no WMD at the time of the invasion, we know he had them before, and would have them again if given the opportunity.

We know that N. Korea and Iran have WMDs. Why aren't we invading them?

 

[mp.freelance]

The fact that more isn't being done about Iran & North Korea is indeed troubling. However, I'm sure that if we did invade one or both of those countries, you'd complain about that as well.

On another topic, you've implied several times that the Iraqi people themselves want us out. Perhaps many of them do. But read this article from the AP:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Violent deaths among Iraqi civilians far exceeded those of soldiers or police during the first six months of this year, according to figures obtained Thursday from separate Iraqi government ministries.

Between Jan. 1 and June 30, 1,594 civilians were killed, according to the Ministry of Health. Civilians often bear the brunt of car-bombings and suicide attacks.

By contrast, a total of 895 security forces — 275 Iraqi soldiers and 620 police — were killed in bombings, assassinations or armed clashes with insurgents, according to figures from the interior and defense ministries.

The number of insurgents killed during that six-month period was 781, the government said.

Earlier this year, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr told The Associated Press that more mosques and clerics from the country's majority Shiite community had been attacked than those belonging to the Sunni minority.

The minister, citing figures he obtained from an Interior Ministry research center, said about 12,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed during the previous 18 months. Of those, more than 10,000 were Shiites, he said.

Jabr said he analyzed the figures based on the areas where the victims lived and not data explicitly stating the branch of Islam they belonged to."

Disagreeable, any successful insurgency needs to have public support. How do you figure they can manage this when they're killing more civilians than anyone else?

 

[Steve]

I've pointed out that everything that I said would happen in the Iraqi war has come to pass. No WMDs, civil war, military mis-deeds, loss of support among the people in the US. All of those things have come about.

I can see by your comment that you are either blind and can't read or plain dillisional,

What civil war? where is there a civil war? when did it happen? where is it at? why has the liberal news media missed it?

as for the Military mis-deeds? I and most Americans Support our troops, and we Unlike your Anti military view, see them as the greatest fighting force in the world. and any deed they have done is far greater then any action I have ever seen attributed to you.

I and most Americans Still Support our Military, it seems that those who lost our support never did show a true backing of our great military, which would easily describe you, Hanoi Jane, Lost Kerry, and their band of losers,

To bad you couldn't predict any of that any better then your prediction that Kerry would win...You were wrong then your wrong now..


Bush won, We will win. Your defeatist attitude may have worked in Nam, but we have learned from History, and will overcome with the full force and might or our determined Military.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

I've pointed out that everything that I said would happen in the Iraqi war has come to pass. No WMDs, civil war, military mis-deeds, loss of support among the people in the US. All of those things have come about.

I can see by your comment that you are either blind and can't read or plain dillisional,

What civil war? where is there a civil war? when did it happen? where is it at? why has the liberal news media missed it?

as for the Military mis-deeds? I and most Americans Support our troops, and we Unlike your Anti military see them as the greatest fighting force in the world. and any deed they have done is far greater then any action I have ever seen attributed to you.

I and most Americans Still Support our Military, it seems that those who lost our support never did show a true backing of our great military, which would easily describe you, Hanoi Jane, Lost Kerry, and their band of losers,

To bad you couldn't predict any of that any better then your prediction that Kerry would win...You were wrong then your wrong now..


Bush won, We will win. Your defeatist attitude may have worked in Nam, but we have learned from History, and will overcome with the full force and might or our determined Military.

Steve - Great post! Succinct, factual statements are hard to refute - no, impossible to refute, but NOT impossible for :twisted: disagreeable :twisted: to RICOCHET. That is his/her prerogative and right in a free country. It will just be interesting to see HOW the facts are distorted and the ricochet technic is worked this time! :lol: :lol: When you cut through the Liberal BS, and understand what their agenda really is - to discredit the United States and our leaders, Pres. Bush in particular, then you can clearly see that it is ALL politics - now and in 2008. THAT is the agenda of the Left Wing Liberal Democrat's - to gain Power and Money as soon as possible, and to do ALL that they can, in every way that they can, to defeat the Republican Party - AT ALL COSTS! : :twisted: disagreeable :twisted: fits that prospectus like a template :wink: We need to keep our eyes open :shock: and watch his/her subtle, scheming stratagem. :lol: :lol:

 

[Sierraman]

Yes, great Steve. But let me add. Concerning Disagreeable's prophecies- With the thousands of soldiers over there, there is going to be corruption somewhere, therefore duh to your military misdeeds, As for loss of support in the U.S.. There is a gain and a loss of support. Support may be lessened in your view but not everyone else's. There is no civil war, unlike Steve said, its not gettting reported. As for WMD's, good thing you got this post in before we've heard of them being found. (Just thinking here. Do you really think we would know if any WMDs were found, especially if real powerful ones were found, like atomics and hydrogens? How would it be protected from thieves and such while it was secured and transported, and where. If you found a hydrogen bomb in your neighbors house, are you gonna tell all of America, and have them potentially steal it? No, or at least I wouldn't. I'd tell the proper authorities.