Explain how with the situation in Iraq as bad as it is and the political opposition upper hand now with the Democrats, please tell me how you think he would be able to do it other than like I said….if Iran was found to be in possession of nuclear grade material?

“No. All of the intelligence reports did not say he was in possession of WMDs”

OK most of them did.

“Those were ignored and kept from everyone outside of the administration.”

The Senate intelligence committee had access to everything the administration did.

“You can read all about it after the impeachment.”

Care to wager on the fact that impeachment hearing will not be called? That’s unless Pelosi, does a 180 by going back on her word.

“Iraq’s leader wasn’t weak, but the country was.”

He was weak which is why his troops didn’t fight for him during the invasion….

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/10/iraq.us/index.html

“If you’re going to use “Islamic fundamentalists” to mean Islamic terrorists, why not use “Christian fundamentalists” to mean Christian terrorists?”

Sounds good to me.

“How would that sit with all the Christian fundamentalists out there who aren’t inclined to blow up buildings and kill at random?”

Probably not too well and I am not inclined to label Islamic fundamentalists as terrorist as long as they have not called for Jihad by the sword, which by definition is the violent form.

“Right-wingers like to keep their hate-mongering simple.”

And left wingers like to keep their denial in the closet.

“We are getting very close to losing Afghanistan.”

Thanks NATO for doing such a good job of relieving the U.S. troops.

“Is that your idea of multi-tasking?”

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t represent but about half of all of the current anti terrorism operations that the U.S. is currently engaged in.

They aren’t comming for you. You have nothing they want.

I agree….there are lazy rich people, there are lazy poor people, as well as lazy middle class people.

Comment by SpudgeBoy

Including people like YOU!!!:D

Comment by Daryll

Be afraid Daryll, Trish and Tracy, be VERY AFRAID. They’re everywhere I tell you, they’re coming to get YOU and your kids. BE AFRAID!!!!!:D

Comment by Exley — December 7, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

Exley – you’re almost as big an idiot as Bush!

BTW maybe it you that doesn’t belong here considering you think that all rich people are lazy and don’t make sacrifices.

I don’t think that all rich people are lazy. But, the rich people who support the war while demanding tax cuts, whose kids aren’t the ones getting killed over there, and who then spend more to buy favors from congressmen than they even get back in tax cuts, are not my idea of patriotic Americans. We can do without them.

We aren’t going to go into Iran. We would only launch attacks against Iran if it were found in possession of weapons grade nuclear material.

You say that as if you actually know what Bush would do. After the faked evidence of WMD trailers, yellow-cake sales from Niger, etc., you’re going to trust the administration to give you the straight skinny on Iran’s nuclear program to justify an attack? Talk about a slow learner.

We took out Saddam because all of the intelligence reports said he was in possession of WMDs and that Iraq was the best bet in trying to establish political change in the Middle East because it’s leader was weak and NOT supported by the people.

No. All of the intelligence reports did not say he was in possession of WMDs. There had been several sources that contradicted that and some that said the administration’s sources were totally unreliable. Those were ignored and kept from everyone outside of the administration. The administration was determined to invade Iraq and made sure that only evidence, tainted as it was, that supported the call for an invasion would be provided to Congress and the public. You can read all about it after the impeachment. It should finally make it to the front pages by then, even in the right-wing rags.

Iraq’s leader wasn’t weak, but the country was. The military had been decimated by the first Gulf War. It was easy pickings. But, this is one more new rationalization you’re throwing into the mix, that we attacked Iraq to establish a foothold from which to transform the Middle East. What a neo-con way of thinking: let’s sacrifice something real, like several thousand innocent lives, for something abstract that we can’t even begin to describe, like democracy in the Middle East. And how neo-con of you to think we haven’t seen enough death and destruction, yet, to say it wasn’t worth the cost. Show some dedication. Throw your own life on the heap.

You are very linear and one dimensional aren’t you. You must work on an assembly line.

I’ll take “linear and one dimensional” over “vacuous” any day. You’re anyting but linear. You can’t follow a deductive argument. You’re unable to recognize your contradictions no matter how carefully they’re explained to you. Try going back and addressing the issue: WE DIDN’T GET THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US ON 9/11. We skipped away from that task and launched into something completely unrelated to it. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the “war on terror”. We stopped fighting the “war on terror” and jumped into something completely different that has been rationalized at different times with any of at least a half dozen different lies. Never mind “We can concentrate on more than one thing at the same time.” We’re not doing it. We’re failing in the “war on terror” because we started the war in Iraq. We’ve increased the number of terrorists who want to kill us and we’ve seen an increase in the number of terrorist attacks around the world. Before the invasion of Iraq, no terrorists operating in Iraq. After the invasion of Iraq, it’s a terrorist recruitment center. Face the goddam facts, would you?!

Christ almighty, what a freakin’ ditz!

No those particular Christian fundamentalists who bombed those clinics should be called terrorists just as those who carried out 9/11 should also be called terrorists; however, the vast majority of Muslims and Christians are not terrorists.

If you’re going to use “Islamic fundamentalists” to mean Islamic terrorists, why not use “Christian fundamentalists” to mean Christian terrorists? How would that sit with all the Christian fundamentalists out there who aren’t inclined to blow up buildings and kill at random?

You call them “Islamic fundamentalists” because you’re of the mind that painting all of Islam with a broad brush makes it a lot easier to direct people’s animosity. It’s not your ox that’s getting gored, so you don’t mind if all of Islam is seen by the West as intolerant and violent. Right-wingers like to keep their hate-mongering simple.

No. Why are you asking a BS question? This idea that we, i.e. the left in the U.S., can only concentrate on one terrorist or problem at a time is very disheartening. Do you not think that for the last 5 years that the U.S. NSA, CIA, FBI and Defence Department has been concentrating on one problem at a time in regards to fighting the terrorists?

If you pull the troops out of Afghanistan and send them to Iraq (yes, that’s what we did), that is not concentrating on two problems at the same time. That’s abandoning the real one and going after the manufactured one. In the meantime, the Taliban have come back and are running much of Afghanistan again. We are getting very close to losing Afghanistan. Is that your idea of multi-tasking?

“Interestingly enough, right-wingers have done nothing to solve the problem, either. But, at least they’ve gotten a lot of people killed needlessly in the process. Way to go.”

Well at least you don’t disagree that MOST (I should have said that earlier)liberals do is talk. BTW the USSR didn’t collapse on it’s own.

“Maybe they’re just trying to build up a defense against the pre-emptive attack that Bush has virtually guaranteed will happen if they don’t have an effective deterrent (i.e. nuclear). ”

You make it sound as if Iran has no interest in dominating it’s neighbors, which of course patently false. Hell they already control Syria and Lebanon.

“By the way, why is it okay for Israel to possess a nuclear arsenal and not have the IAEA inspect while it’s forbidden for Iran to even produce one weapon?”

Because the UN knows that Israel won’t use them in an offensive manner. Plus the have never drafted or contimplated drafting a resolution that would prohibit Isreal from having nukes. Again Israel has never advoated anihalating Iran from the face of the earth.

“Although it originally appeared shortly after the last election, I think the article is so fundamentally honest and insightful that it bears dissemination until every American has read it. You can read the whole thing here.”

That is the biggest piece of crap propaganda I have seen in a long time that it was probably written by Hugo Chavez himself. LOL!! What I find amazing about the article is that when the Republicans esentially took control of the U.S. goverment in 1994 was just about the time the internet got going. A wealth of news and information not avaliable to the American people for the last 40+ years, however the idiot who wrote the article Jame Smiley would have you believe that the Ameican people are more ignorant now than they were before the 1990s. Talk about an apologist for a failed ideology…she takes that cake.