ABC News Survey: 33 Senators Say They Were Wrong To Vote For War In Iraq
ABC News Survey: 33 Senators Say They Were Wrong To Vote For War In Iraq
In Oct. 2003, 77 senators voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq. Just 23 senators voted against it.
But according to a new ABC News survey, 33 out of the original 77 senators “indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now.” Five senators — including three Republicans — said that in retrospect, the intelligence was so wrong that the matter should never have even been brought to a vote. These results would mean that a vote to authorize war in Iraq today would be 43-57, and the resolution would fail. (Full list of senators here.)
ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper presented the survey results today on Good Morning America, noting that the survey of the senators was “a stunning repudiation of their own votes, the prewar intelligence, and the war itself.” Watch it:
According to a December CBS News poll, just 39 percent of the American public now believes that the “United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq.”
Transcript:
DIANE SAWYER: An ABC News survey of the senators who voted to go to war suggests the President may have a tough time selling his plan on Capitol Hill. ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper in Washington has the results for us this morning. Jake?
JAKE TAPPER: Good morning, Diane. ABC News surveyed all 77 senators who voted to authorize foce in Iraq and asked them a simple question — knowing what you know now, would you vote the same way? The shocking results. The Senate that so overwhelmly voted to give the President more powers, Democrats and Republicans, would not do so today.
[BEGIN CLIP]
VOICE: Mr. Harkin — aye.
TAPPER: In October 2002, the vote to go to war in Iraq was overwhelming. 77 for, 23 against.
VOICE: The joint resolution is passed.
[END CLIP]
TAPPER: But an ABC News survey of those senators shows that knowing then what they know now, only 43 would vote the same way, and 57 would likely vote against the war. The resolution would not pass. Thirty-three U.S. senators who voted to go to war indicated to ABC News that they would vote differently knowing then what they knew now. Or that pre-war intelligence alleging Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was so wrong, the Senate would have never even voted on the war. While overwhelmingly the regrets came from Democrats, a significant number came from Republicans.
[SNIP]
TAPPER: Overall our survey, Diane, indicates — a survey of the senators who voted to go to war — a stunning repudiation of their own votes, the prewar intelligence, and the war itself.
SAWYER: Well Jake, that’s it. More than 40 senators saying they would take back a vote. I have never heard of this.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
288 Responses to “ABC News Survey: 33 Senators Say They Were Wrong To Vote For War In Iraq”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
How is it that us average Americans knew it was a bad idea before 33 effing Senators did?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pm57 to 43 is damn close to IMPEACHMENT TIME!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThere is a perfect way for these Senators to make amends: voting in favor of impeaching Bush.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pmIf the Dems don't see the recent polls of Americans that are against this war and now this one of the Senators themselves as a go ahead to take charge and reverse the course of the occupation they are blind. The war was won. The military did what was asked. Don't continue the occupation.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:28 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
Comment by Tracy
Speaking personally, yes.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pmwhat if Congress were to revoke its authorization for war?
(talk about your constitutional crises...yeehaa)
January 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pm.
Tracy,
We knew it wasn't worth it. We knew Bush was incompetent.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:31 pmintelligence was so wrong- make that so FIXED to fit policy! IMPEACHMENT!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pmI knew Bush was a very dangerous, scary, simpleminded, redneck back in 2000. I was fearful for our country before he was installed.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:36 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
Comment by Tracy
Tracy,
Since you want to talk about things in fantasy land....what if there was absolute proof that there were no WMDs would you still be for invading Iraq?
By the way South Korea has WMDs. Should we attack them?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pm#6
So you don't have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pmDamnit! I knew I should have saved those Pro-Iraq form letters she would respond to my e-mails with!!!!!!!
28 indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now:
17. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas
But then again, I'd like to think all the correspondence I sent her made her change her mind!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThere never was any real evidence of wmd in Iraq. All credible reports coming out of Iraq said that previously held wmds were either gone or degraded to an unusable point.
They were all afraid to appear "unpatriotic" and swallowed the kool-aid on command. Now they are beginning to realize that they will go down in history as either being stupid and uninformed or willfully destructive.
They all want to blame the "intelligence" but anyone with access to a computer was able at the time to research the issue and come up with their own conclusions if they had given it a try. They all owe the entire world a huge apology.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThis is stupid. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda. Let's focus on what we can do to change the future.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pmWhat is really telling--and what wasn't mentioned in the clip--is that only 15 Senators stood by their vote to authorize the war. The rest of them either refused to answer the question, were too sick to answer it (Johnson, Helms), or were dead (Strom Thurmond).
January 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pm#14
"There never was any real evidence of wmd in Iraq. All credible reports coming out of Iraq said that previously held wmds were either gone or degraded to an unusable point."
That was well after the invasion and the removal of Saddam's regime from power.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pmABC mislabeled some of these senators as R's rather than D's (easy to do considering their vote). I believe Baucus, Cleland, Kohl, and Torricelli are D's, are they not?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmTracy - does stupidity run in your family or is it just you?
Facts do have a liberal bias!!!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pm#12: So you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
Having a "problem" with countries aspiring to possess nuclear weapons is very different from believing that we should go to war with them. Have you not learned this lesson from the current debacle in Iraq?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pmYet, those same senators will not try to correct their wrong.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:46 pmTo them admitting isn't the first step to recovery.
In the coming months, the list will be bigger than 28 Senators who are now questioning their vote for 'Iraq war authorising use of force',when Congress begins to Subpoena people to testify who were involved in this war from start.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pm#17: That was well after the invasion and the removal of Saddam’s regime from power.
This is simply wrong. The U.N. weapons inspectors, as well as numerous other sources, clearly stated that they believed Iraq's WMD's were gone or not usable. The Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence to fit the policy they had already decided upon.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThe question of whether or not Congress can stop the bushco "surge" is moot. Just impeach the useless bastard and the problem goes away, along with all the other problems Congress will have with him. Just think of all the time saved in not having to override his vetoes. My bad! He won't veto the bills, he will just do his form letter signing statement ala Cheney: "Congress eff yourself!"
January 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pmSounds like the Overture to Impeachment is wafting up from the orchestra pit. I can't wait to see wingnuts gnashing teeth and rending garments as the proceedings unfold, and Dubbie is finally, publicly, irrevocably branded for the obseqious tool/shill/punk he has always been. I'll have no choice but to spend the rest of my days taunting them, and reminding everyone of how it happened, or was allowed to happen, so we never have to go through another of these political night-terrors, as has happened since 2000.
Impeach, Convict, Incarcerate!!!!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmImpeach Bush, Pat Robertson for President in '08.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:50 pmImpeach Bush, Pat Robertson for President in ‘08.
Comment by Daryll
I would back both of those actions. Watching Pat address the nation in a presidential run on the Repub platform would be hilarious.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pmSo you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
Comment by Tracy
That wasn't the question, Tracy, was it?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm#25 tom
Just for fun add castrate. After all, he has been having his way with us against our will for six years.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pmTracy,
So you like how Bush ignores NK and lets them proliferate? At least Clinton contained them, and kept them close, like you should do with your enemies. But Bush is too stupid to see that.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pmThe poor wingers, now that they can't scream "We win elections! The people agree with us so STU!" they don't know how to do battle on-line anymore.
That was always their default.
Now they are grumpy losers, like fat and lonely Dennis Hastert.
Suck it up losers..........and thank us for the minimum wage increase you are about to get.
-GSD
January 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmTracy,
We know that you really think Iraq had WMD's and they just moved them. All the hardcore GOPers think that.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmSo how do you run a government through hindsight?
ROTFL
January 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmThe list shows Lieberman and McCain are not up to change their minds about anything..they want more troops sent to Iraq..and if you leave it to Lieberman (now Independent)..he likes us to invade Syria,Lebanon,Iran...to fullfil the NeoCons/PNAC doctrine dreams. But Lieberman never said anything about invading N.Korea..I wonder why?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
Comment by Tracy
..but they didn't so what is your point. Are saying the war is justified because we acted out of ignorance. That doesn't sound like taking responsibility. That sounds like someone incapable of learning from past experience.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
Comment by Tracy
Ma'am, we have absolutely no business as the worlds police force. Invading a soverign nation is not part of our national conscience. We usually go to the aid of countries who have been invaded. BTW, we have nukes. We have used them on our enemies. Should another country decide we should be invaded?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pm#11
Absolutely, but I also would have been for doing everything throughout the 1990s politically and covertly thru elements inside Iraq in order to oust Sadamm and not just sit there and let sanctions make the Iraqi people suffer unnecessarily.
"By the way South Korea has WMDs. Should we attack them?"
I think you ment N. Korea and no considering nukes are the ultimate deterrent and considering they have already demonstrated to have the ability to deliver it. South Korea is way to close and the North Koreans have alot of troops just waiting to invade. The WMDs that were thought to be inside Iraq were chemical and biological weapons. The ability of Iraq to effectively deliver these weapons, say to Israel however was very limited. In the first Gulf War when Saddam's military cabability was very much in tact and was absolutely known to have chemical weapons for instance, he was obviously not able to deliver them, eventhough a few SCUDs landed in Tel Aviv with no traces of chemical agents.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmHappy Guy,
My hind sight has not changed since 2000. Its the same. I knew the chimp was a moron then, I know he is now. I didn't want to go into Iraq then, and I still think we shouldn't have.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmSo how do you run a government through hindsight?
ROTFL
Comment by Happy Guy
Obviously not Happy Slappy. Do you use history to make a decision in your everyday life? Like you might know where a speed trap is or something, and avoid it next time?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pm#19
I has to run in your family and you as well for you to make a statement like that! LOL!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThe opening sentence reads: "In Oct. 2003, 77 senators voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq."
I think that should read "Oct. 2002"
I hate typos.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmThey should have cracked the books a bit harder back then, eh? Sorry Senators (and that includes you, Hillary) you failed, big time, in the biggest vote any of you will ever have in your lives. Let's continue to wipe the slate clean in 2008, let's vote Al Gore.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmhttp://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
I know the families of 3000 dead soldiers are glad to here this news. If the elected officials had done their job and the 109th congress didn't rubber stamp everything Bush told them to do maybe those soldiers would not have died. It's like not giving a person somethng to eat and 4 years later saying I would have given them food but it's to late.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pm#23
Show us their statements then.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmTracy,
Can you make fun of yourself? No, cuz your a crotchity ol' stuck up prude.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmI agree with Naj. What's done is done and all we can do is learn from the mistakes/manipulations/treachery.
I hope that people have wised up and continue to educate themselves and vow to not get manipulated again!
We need to demand transparency and insist on our voices being heard by those we pay to represent us and the Constitution.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pm1. We knew there were no WMDs and that the excuses were trumped up before the invasion. We repeatedly called and wrote Congress and were ignored. How is it we, poor plan average citizens, knew this, and Congress did not?
2. Who the h&^# are these 43 or so deluded fools who appear willing to still support this insane act of voting for an unjust illegal war that has destroyed our standing, is destroying our army, and is bankrupting us as a nation, both fiscally and morally? They do not deserve to be in Congress. The people who keep voting them into office are as guilty as they are for voting for this war. Ultimately, the blood is on their hands.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmWhy did they vote for it at the time? Political expediency. Now that it is a political time bomb they are changing their tune. Predictable, but depressing.
These douchebags wouldn't know leadership if it smacked them in the face.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#28
I already got the answer, so I was just posing another.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#8 Was?
#11 President Bush was still in favor of invading under those circumstances. He Has said more than once that knowing then what he knows today he still would have invaded. To me that sounds like he wanted to do it regardless of the circumstances or consequences.
#17 Actually Tracy at the time the inspectors already in the country pretty much said that they were finding nothing. Only in Washington did anyone say for certain that they had them. In fact only in Washington did anyone say "yes they have them and we know where they are..." which leads to a number of questions..
If they knew where these WMD were prior to the invasion, why did they not inform the UN Inspectors of the whereabouts of said WMD?
If they knew where they were with no presence in the country, how did they lose track of them?
If they knew where they were prior to coming in the country, why do they now admit they made a mistake and there really were none?
These questions along with the presidents willingness to invade regardless of the evidence should concern people...all people without regard to their nationality or politcal affiliation.
#30 People like tracy blame clinton for North Korea in spite of the fact that NK has produced all their weapons grade matterial under Bush's watch after Bush dropped the agreements negotiated by the CLinton Camp
I have a theory on why bush seems to like to break treaties and violate international law. To me this current administration seems to project quite abit. What they project onto opponants typically ends up being what they end up doing. So the administration assumes no one will stand by treaties or agreeements because they themselves have no intention of ever standing by any.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThere was nothin' like a little good old-fashioned fascist neo-colonial, imperialist aggression in the 21st century in the American war on Iraq to warm the hearts of Bush, Cheney, Feinstein and the goose-stepping majorities of our House and Senate after being warmed up by a little High Treason on 9-11...
January 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pmCharmed, I'm sure...
Tracy,
Can't you answer any of my questions?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pm#32
Just like all real Libs like Kerry were against removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1990?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmTracy,
Here's one for ya:
"Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
Now go do some research why don't ya? Might do you some good.l
January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmI don't know what is more astounding. That the 30%ers are offering up the argument that "Gee, so you were right, but wouldn't you have looked really stupid if you were wrong?". Or, that the "enlightened" senators say that they wouldn't have voted the way that they did while doing (virtually) nothing to reverse that bad decision.
To the senators I say: Wake up and get us out of Iraq now and then begin the impeachment process.
To the 30%ers I say: Admit your mistakes and grow from it instead of taking the path of a coward and blaming others. So you were wrong, get over it and start listening to those that were right instead of criticizing them for not being as wrong as you.
Happy New Year! Go Nancy!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmSo you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
Comment by Tracy #12
Personally...
...I've got MORE of a problem with DELUSIONAL, FANATIC...
...inbred Bushite TRAITORS like YOU (Trashy)...
...owning ANY kind of weapons!
your "kind" (right wing Bush worshipping al Crackkker scum) are more of a danger to us (and our freedom, democracy diversity and prosperity)...
...than Iran OR NK...
January 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmTracy,
There was no slam dunk, even from the get-go. There were questions about the intelligence, and they were ignored. Powell was duped, as you were, and still are.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#36
"Ma’am, we have absolutely no business as the worlds police force."
That's Mr. and that is your OPINION.
"Invading a soverign nation is not part of our national conscience. We usually go to the aid of countries who have been invaded."
Reactive rather than pro-active is what happened with Hitler.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmI agree big papa.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#
Just like all real Libs like Kerry were against removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1990?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Umm so was Bush Sr.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pm#52
If you would ask on worth answering.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pm"So how do you run a government through hindsight?"
Something called accountability comes to mind followed by empeachment followed by jail time.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmWhy didn't the ABC survey ask the Senators who had voted against the war whether they regretted their decision?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:30 pmre #13 (myself):
If any of your Senators are on the list, PLEASE write them and THANK them for seeing the truth (finally).
We were able to influence the elections, but we can't go silent now!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pmReactive rather than pro-active is what happened with Hitler.
Comment by Tracy
And that was taken care of correctly because it was just.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pmGuess all the trolls got together and Tracy drew the short straw. Save your breath guys, nothing you say will change this guy's opinions.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pmhind sight is 20/20. I guess Kerry and the rest of the pro war guys want to simply walk away from there responsiblity for getting us into this war.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmTracy that was extremely weak. You need a nap.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pm#67,
It is "hind sight" for you. Many people, including those in government, here, and throughout the country saw this fiasco for what it was and called it from the beginning. You and your ilk branded them "traitors" and "cowards" and "libruls" and "terrorist sympathizers", etc...
So why won't you listen to the people that have been right all along and instead insist on following the lead of those who have been wrong all along? Doesn't say much for your character now does it?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pmRR - I totally agree!!
Oh this is an interesting day I must say. The planets must be coming into some kind of alignment when RR and Cindy Sheehan both agree on something (that getting us out of Iraq should be priority number one).
I don't think we should let any of them get away with blaming bad intelligence. How dumb do they think we are? (rhetorical question)
They either knew the war was wrong and were too weak to stand up or they didn't research the issue sufficiently and therefore were not acting responsibly with the powers vested in them by those they represent.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pm67. What? You put Kerry at the top of that list. Not Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, DeLay, Frist, etc.........
January 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmHistorically, I know where the speed traps are on my Interstate. But I wouldn't be dumb enought to use that history to make a decision about my current driving behavior now would I Rogerx2 ?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmI still can't believe anyone bought into it.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmTracy sez:
That's a lie, Tracy, and you know it.
Three words: Downing Street Memo.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#6 So you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Actually, I have a problem with the US having them! As well as everyone else! And we have more than every other country out together.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pm#50
"#17 Actually Tracy at the time the inspectors already in the country pretty much said that they were finding nothing."
Yes and Saddam not allowing them unfettered access certainly didn't raise any eyebrows.
"If they knew where these WMD were prior to the invasion, why did they not inform the UN Inspectors of the whereabouts of said WMD?"
They didn't know exactly where they were and if they did have them the Iraqis surely weren't going to let the inspector find them anyway.
"People like tracy blame clinton for North Korea in spite of the fact that NK has produced all their weapons grade matterial under Bush’s watch after Bush dropped the agreements negotiated by the CLinton Camp"
Why did Clinton have to negotiate a deal to STOP producing weapons grade nuke fuel with NK in the first place? BTW did you have a problem with Clinton allowing NK to keep all of their spent fuel rods after the reactor was shut down at Yongbyon?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pm#60
How?...exactly.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#74
Logically, if you feel the war is wrong and even illegal there would then be no bigger issue. If this war is "wrong" and it is getting people killed, nothing would be more important. So, with that in mind, prioirty #1 better be to end this war and get the troops home. Seeing as though the Dems ran there campaign on this issue, they better have Iraq as priority #1.
They would look as bad as repugs messing with petty issues like ethics reform and lobby reform when the "wrong" war is getting Americans killed.
I assume we can all have complete faith that Pelosi will be having a vote to cut all funding for Iraq and a vote demanding we bring all the troops home. Since this "wrong" is getting people killed, we must assume this vote will be happening TODAY and not some petty BS issue. That would look heartless and extremely evil if you truly believe this war is "wrong".
January 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#65
And millions of people died because the apeasers followed a BS notion that no action can be taken untill the other makes a move. I like it.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#56
Man, you should have stayed in retirement.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmAt the end of the first Gulf war, Bush sr, was being advised to enter Iraq, and remove saddam from power. He chose not too. He foresaw, that a full scale military invasion like that would lead to complete chaos, and only make US troops targets in a Iraq.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:03 pmTracy sez:
Still stuck on comparing Saddam to Hitler, huh?
Tell me, how many countries had Saddam annexed before we finally took action?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmTracy is not here to answer questions. She's here to pose strawman arguments. She doesn't even realize that Bush senior and his most trusted advisers didn't want to occupy Bagdad. Somehow, she thinks this is a liberal idea. Why even argue with a girl like this?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmTracy sez:
Man, you should have stayed in high school.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pmTrip - its not Saddam wasn't deterred from invading Kuwait - the exact opposite. April Glaspie was told to emphasize that the US had no interest in Saddam's dispute with Kuwait.....I guess that could be viewed as appeasement.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pmTracy continues to conflate Saddam with Hitler. Let's face it: the girl just doesn't know her history. Tracy, Hitler had taken over most of Europe by force by the time we got involved. He had been responsible for the executions of close to 20 million people in a number of European counties. He declared war on the United States and developed a strategic relationship with another industrial power which had already attacked and declared war on us. Girl, you need to read your history books!
January 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pm#74
Original statement:
"All credible reports coming out of Iraq said that previously held wmds were either gone or degraded to an unusable point.â€
Key word, not withstanding the ability to look back in hindsight, is "credible". There were many reports from multiple intelligence agencies that said the opposite.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pmTerry: "I guess that could be viewed as appeasement."
You could also view that as a very sophisticated "rope-a-dope."
January 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pmAnd millions of people died because the apeasers followed a BS notion that no action can be taken untill the other makes a move. I like it.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
And hundreds of thousands have died because the warmongers followed a BS PNAC notion that action must be taken before the other even thinks of making a move. I hate it.
This troll is named Tracy because there's only a trace of brains in its head.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pm#81
You stated that Bush Sr. was against removing Saddam from Kuwait, not that he was against marching to Baghdad and taking him out completely...a big mistake BTW, because as we all know shortly after the end of the Gulf War in 1991, large numbers of the Iraqi National Congress led an uprising against Saddam which led to us sitting there watching them get slaughtered.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:20 pmTracy sez:
As I told you before, Tracy, three words: Downing Street Memo.
There is ample evidence that the administration knew full well that WMDs were not to be found, and that the intelligence reports were deliberately jury-rigged to support the existing policy decision of invasion.
It's not that we don't expect you to lie, Tracy, but just repeating lies that have been refuted already is just lazy.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmTracy sorry, but the VP mentioned multiple times that we know where the WMD are, Rumsfeld mentioned it and President Bush even referred to a chemical lab in NNE Iraq. So again does their incompetence scare you as much as it scares me? And again when the president says that if he knew then what he knows today he would still invade doesn't that pretty much signal that this war was inevitable regardless of WMD or ties to terrorism? Toss on top of that the fact that the white house is stacked with members of the PNAC and that the war pretty much followed what they wanted. Heck Wolfowitz pretty much said so shortly after the war began. I believe the quote was something about needing a reason to invade that was palatable to the public and the threat of terrorism was it. All of this should make you take notice of the actions of this white house, yet they don’t you will blindly support any policy coming out of the white house regardless of the consequences because he is your guy.
Ok, we’ve heard the president and nearly every right wing pundit talk about how evil and desperate to hang onto power Sadaam was. I think the president even said this is a man who will do anything to maintain his power. I guess now we need to amend that to say he will do anything except use his most powerful weapons which he mysteriously shipped to Syria in the middle of the night completely unnoticed by the US who said we know where the weapons are.
From my understanding of North Korea everything was under seal and inspected regularly. The seals to the plants were not broken until the Bush admin decided that they did not want to honor or extend any agreement that was negotiated by the previous administration. Besides that, just how easy do you think it is to transport nuclear material? Simply put it in your pocket and walk home?
Face it on nearly every level this administration is dishonest, immoral and incompetent. I say nearly every level because they up until now, have been very good at politics, not moral or honest with politics, just good at using them to get their way. But the emperor has strutted in public one to many times and the people have finally been willing to tell him that he’s wearing nothing.
I’ll close with this since being the worlds police man has come up again:
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. "
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
January 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pm-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
#82
"Tell me, how many countries had Saddam annexed before we finally took action?"
None, but considering he already tried in 1990 with Kuwait, it proved he had the ability and willingness to try.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pmAnd millions of people died because the apeasers followed a BS notion that no action can be taken untill the other makes a move. I like it.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
It is no BS notion, Tracy. You have been told so many times already: Preemptive strikes -on the basis that the target may, one day, become a threat- are against international law. It is also contrary to Christian doctrine: A just war can only be launched in self-defense. From that standpoint, the first strike must be in response to an aggression or to forestall an imminent attack.
By defending the preemptive strike doctrine you are, in essence, legitimising the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI did no such thing Tracy, you have made it out of whole cloth. If I remember correctly Bush sr. had indicated to the Kurds in northern Iraq, that he would support any revolt against Saddam, but like you said stood by and did nothing when they did. Of course there was always the rumour that Bush told Saddam he didn't care if Saddam took Kuwait too.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm#83
Bluedog isn't here to read what was written. She is here to take what others didn't comprehend initally and build on it.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmTracy, if you are going to use those talking points you should really look them up to see if they are true first. Rumsfeld came out and stated he not only knew Iraq had WMD's, he knew where they were. He said they were in the area around Tikrit. It was an interview with Stephonopolis.
Saddam also offered unfettered access at the 11th hour and the United States rejected it.
You want to defend this conflict (War has never been declared) then what is your stance on the piss poor actions since it started. (open to all who believe this conflict is the right thing)
Explain Paul Brehmer disbanning the military. For that matter, explain the guy who was placed before Brehmer (name escapes me). He was given no plan.
Explain the complete lack of overisight of the civilian contractors and the billions wasted.
Explain the lack of initial understanding the amount of troops needed and then the continual neglect of increasing troops while something still could have been done in years 1 and 2 of this conflict.
Explain " I listen to my Generals"
Explain How a uniter, not a divider has been the opposite. Don't use 9/11 because it has been shown so many times that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Explain how the military hadn't been given the equipment needed to protect themselves in the first 2 years of this conflict.
Explain how this administration believes they can deplete our reserve and guard forces for this conflict (again, not a war).
Go ahead start some explaining and then if you still want to support this then fine but explain how you can support this conflict after you address the above. Please avoid using slogans/talking points such as "get them there before they get them here" or "spreading democracy" both will be picked apart like a Turkey 4 days after thanksgiving.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pm#78 they have to do all the normal items of governing. They have to work on all phases. Our government is a mess after six years of bad tenants. They need to shore up our democracy as well as work on finding an Iraq Solution. Of course for 4 years my rightwing friends have been telling me that Congress has no say in what the president does in Iraq, so using that logic they can’t do anything. However we all know that is not the case, as all people who think clearly should realize that congress has many things to fix, not just Iraq. Iraq is simply the biggest issue, and you are assuming that they are doing nothing about it. They may very well be doing nothing, or they may very well be working on solutions out of the public eye to be presented only when they find acceptable solutions.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pmIt's pathetic really at this point, with all we now know, that a Bush cultist like Tracy would still be arguing that it was the right thing to do. Cultists will never learn. They have a dogma. It's like religion -- the dear leader is infallible. He cannot make a mistake. Very sad that someone who calls herself an American can be such a simpering, compliant follower.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pmTracy: "She is here to take what others didn’t comprehend initally and build on it."
Tracy, what is it that you don't comprehend about WWII? Why do you keep acting like Saddam was a "Hitler?" Did you fall asleep in history class?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmTracy, Saddam was just executed for crimes he committed while an ally of the United States and using weapons provided for him by the United States. Does that sound like anything resembling Hitler to you?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm#86
"Tracy, Hitler had taken over most of Europe by force by the time we got involved."
Girl, exactly how did Hilter manage to take over much Europe by the time we got off our butts and helped? What brilliant foreign policies of countries like France and Britian, let to him run over much of Western Europe n the first place? It wouldn't be that reactive rather that proactive policy would it? Sit on your butt and wait to be attacked. Brilliant. Israel got it right back in 1967...don't wait to be invaded when you know it's about to happen.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmTrashy (Tracy) isn't interested in engaging in intellectually HONEST dialogue...
...it is only here to needle, and fill the void in its lonely, worthless existence...
...its false gods (Bushiva and L'il Dick) have abandoned it...
...it is to be pitied, yet ignored like a partially smuushed cockroach that manages to continue crawling with is slimy viscera oozing out...
...leave it alone and it will die...
...slowly...
January 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThey didn’t know exactly where they were and if they did have them the Iraqis surely weren’t going to let the inspector find them anyway.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
This is not what the Amerrican public was told. Have you forgotten Sec Rumsfeld's famous words?
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
So, we were told the location for those WMD was very well known. Not to mention the UN inspectors were given phony reports on where to find these weapons; all leads came to naught.
considering he already tried in 1990 with Kuwait, it proved he had the ability and willingness to try.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
And by 2003, it was clear that whatever intentions Hussein might have had regarding Kuwait -or the rest of the world, for that matter- he simply didn't have the means to carry out any of his fantasies. Not with a team of UN inspectors running around the country and making sure all non-compliant weapons found were destroyed.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pmLook, Shrub is a mirror of the Lowest Common Denominators of society, like little Tracy here. You know, the piss-poor education, more brawn than brains ilk.
Stupid is as stupid does, and you does stupid really well.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmTracy is stuck on some wedge issue like gay marriage or abortion.
She could give a rat's ass about the rest. She is just trying to sound like she made a good choice with her votes.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#95
"Just like all real Libs like Kerry were against removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1990?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Umm so was Bush Sr.
Comment by Krazny — January 5, 2007 @ 1:28 pm"
January 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmIf having WMD is a VALID reason for attaking a SOVEREIGN nation, then every nation has the right to attack the United States!
If GW Bush did not want to wait for the "mushroom cloud" as the "smoking gun", how come he has not launched an attack on North Korea?
How can one LOGICALLY say the United States was "in danger" if we "do not" remove WMD from Iraq, but "not in danger" if we "do not" remove WMD from North Korea?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmTracy, I assume you, as a christian, have read the bible. What do you think Jesus meant by "Blessed are the Peacemakers." When Bush ignored his own responsibility to go back to the UN under the terms of the congressional authorization, told all the inspectors to get out of the country and proceeded with "shock and awe," was that a christian thing to do?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmBlessed are the merciful, for they shall recieve mercy.
Not Tracy.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTracy: "Girl, exactly how did Hilter manage to take over much Europe by the time we got off our butts and helped? What brilliant foreign policies of countries like France and Britian, let to him run over much of Western Europe n the first place? It wouldn’t be that reactive rather that proactive policy would it? Sit on your butt and wait to be attacked. Brilliant. Israel got it right back in 1967…don’t wait to be invaded when you know it’s about to happen."
Good question, Tracy. If you, as a conservative, knew your history, you wouldn't want to ask it. Because, it was American conservatives and representatives of American business in the 30's who argued against getting involved in Europe.
And please try to get your head around this fact: Hitler declared war on us. Saddam never attacked or declared war on us. In fact, Saddam immediately sent condolences to American media the day after the 9-11 attack. He was an enemy of al Qaeda, the people who DID attack us.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pmTracy, you have been smacked down with point after point after point. Mark, excellent quotes. The sheer qty. of this game of find the pea is maddening.
Still waiting for explanations Tracy. And if your reading you to Mighty Aphrodite
January 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pmTracy sez:
Yes, of course, because if he ever did start that sort of thing, he'd be impossible to stop...
Oh, wait...
Bush Sr. did stop him, didn't he? Stopped him rather handily.
Tracy why would you even bring up Kuwait, when it disproves your whole 'lurking menace' nonsense so completely?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmThe only brown people Tracy trusts is the Saudi Royal Family.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pmKey word, not withstanding the ability to look back in hindsight, is “credibleâ€.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
This one statement is amazingly obtuse -even by your standards, Tracy
Of course you follow up on the credible reports. Why would you act on those that have no credibility whatsoever?
All your posts are simply ad hoc reasoning to support your opinion that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were justified, inspite of the evidence to the contrary (UN inspections, Downing Street Memo, Niger uranium lies, etc.)
January 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmGirl, exactly how did Hilter manage to take over much Europe by the time we got off our butts and helped?
don’t wait to be invaded when you know it’s about to happen.
Comment by Tracy
So exactly when did germany invade the US? Trying to second guess history rewrite a different outcome is foolish. WWII started the way it did because of many political, social and economic reasons. To say the US should have attack Germany prior to its invasion of Poland is ludicrous. We didn't even have tanks then and were pulling our artillery with horses.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmYou know something I've never been able to figure about the The Six Day War is that if Israel was surrounded and about to be overwhelmed by an Arab military machine, how come this invasion-ready juggernaut only took six days to annhilate?
Thanks for reminding of another country with WMD which has a history of invading its neighbors and oppressing ethnic groups inside its borders. Place a call to the White House, they missed a country to preempt.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pm#94
"...are against international law."
And just who wrote this part international law and who is in charge of enforcing it? I would have figured that after WW2 the European would have leard that doing nothing and making concessions is not a good policy. Although Clinton had no problem violating "international law" by taking out Milosivic. Also according to international law we wouldn't be allowed to oust the Sudanese government for their sponsoring of genocide in Darfur.
"It is also contrary to Christian doctrine:..."
How?
"From that standpoint, the first strike must be in response to an aggression or to forestall an imminent attack."
Who defines that aggression? To wait for an imminent attack is insane.
"By defending the preemptive strike doctrine you are, in essence, legitimising the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pmTracy, it has cost us 3000 lives, about 25,000 limbs and a half a trillion dollars to bring about the execution of Saddam. What sane, cogent argument can you make to justify this?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pmTracy is stuck on some wedge issue like gay marriage or abortion.
She could give a rat’s ass about the rest. She is just trying to sound like she made a good choice with her votes.
Comment by ForTruth — January 5, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Sadly you are almost certainly correct… one issue voters almost always rally behind the package deal… if the Dems were for Tracy’s one issue - he would probably be against the war and for social welfare… ironically he would use the same book (The Bible) to justify his different positions.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pm#97
"Saddam also offered unfettered access at the 11th hour and the United States rejected it."
Yeah sure he was going to follow thru....right as we were about to walk away!
"You want to defend this conflict (War has never been declared) then what is your stance on the piss poor actions since it started."
I think that it was executed badly, but I wasn't against the invasion itself.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm#100
"Why do you keep acting like Saddam was a “Hitler?â€"
Did he or did he not try and annex Kuwait to Iraq?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pmTracy: "To wait for an imminent attack is insane."
There was not going to be any attack. That has been established.
Tracy: "Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?"
Two reasons: strident members of the Japanese military thought we were "soft," and the Japanese empire feared that we would cut off their supply of oil. As most of us know, many members of the Japanese military and government thought the attack was a big mistake.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pm#101
Saddam and Hilter had their differences, so your comparison question isn't valid.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pmTracy: "Did he or did he not try and annex Kuwait to Iraq?"
We annexed parts of the southwest and Texas and took them from Mexico. Does that make us equal to Nazi Germany?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pm#99
"Cultists will never learn. They have a dogma."
What do think libs do on a daily basis?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pmI love how Tracy totally leaves me alone. To me it says she can't argue with any of my points.
I know Tracy, you think I don't come up with things that are worth your response.
Like my question about North Korea and what you think about GWB ignoring that problem.
Or my question about your take on WMD's.
Yup not worth your response.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmTracy, let me remind you that it is you who tries to conflate Saddam with Hitler, not me. It's a tired old comparison, a talking point you and your idiot pundits have attempted to make without success. It's amazing to me that someone can be so clueless as to still be pressing it.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWhy did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?
Comment by Tracy
Because their leader was a maniacal madman, like Shrub, who used the pre-emptive excuse to expand his empire and managed to get his country into a war with the "Sleeping Giant", who eventually blew most of Japan and the Japanese to high-hell.
Watch TORA! TORA! TORA! because that horrible Ben Affleck "Pearl Harbor" movie is the WORST HISTORICAL ADAPTATION EVER.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmDid he or did he not try and annex Kuwait to Iraq?
Comment by Tracy
So when we annexed Califonia from Mexico President Polk was acting comparable to Hitler? Interesting point of view.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmTracy: "What do think libs do on a daily basis?"
Protect the constitution from ignorant religious fascists like you.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmNorth Korea isn't a problem because they don't have anything we need. Now Iran is a huge problem as there lake of Oil is very important to us!! Screw North Korea, we wouldn't gain anything of value by attacking them. Iran on the other hand would be worth our time!
January 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pmTracy get in yoru way back machine and re-examine the actions of the US prior to WWII, heck take a look at Europe prior to WWII. Prior to WWII Europe had fought the bloodiest, costliest most senseless war in the history of mankind. WWI in case you didn’t know. Between the wars Europe went through a depression/recession era. Prior to WWII there had not been a world leader quite like Hitler, except for Stalin. Hitler invaded Poland under the guise of national security. He pretty much led the German people to believe that Poland was being aggressive towards Germany and that they had to be attacked to safeguard Germany. After that the war just got uglier and uglier. By the time the US got involved Germany had declared war on us, but they didn’t really need to as we were ready to get involved then anyway. But prior to that…
The US had also gone through a depression. Our economy was in rebuilding mode. During the era between the wars our military was degraded to peacetime status and was not huge and we really did not have the money to support a huge military. Add to that the isolationists in the states (republicans) who did not want extensive foreign entanglements. There of course was another faction of the republican party that wanted us to be involved on the side of Hitler, guys like Lindbergh, Ford, Prescott Bush etc… While Democrats were wanting to assist Great Britain. Roosevelt did all he legally could prior to the war.
You criticize Europe and the US with little or no knowledge about what was going on then. Way back then, the US did not go around the world picking fights, that was considered illegal and the tyrants and despots were the ones who did things like that. We also had no exposure to a guy like Hitler who would kill every political opponent as well as kill every one whom he personally felt was unworthy of life. Leaders like that just did not exist in the world we knew then. They do now, that is for certain. But with Europe remember they had WWI and most nations did not want a war. They assumed that Germany didn’t want war either. Every country in Europe had been bled dry by WWII and they thought they had enough. Right wingers talk about appeasement, especially regarding the Sudetenland. Well, they tend to ignore the treaty of Versailles which created countries out of thin air with borders that were nowhere near their historical boundaries. Poland was shifted West, Germany was shrunk from the south and east. So the peace set the seeds in place and we are still paying for it today. Yugoslavia, Checkslovakia and Iraq were all created at that time, the peace was bungled completely and it led to WWII.
One other thing you absolutely do not understand is that we are supposed to be the good guys. Other people start wars, we are supposed to be the guys who end the wars. We attack aggressors we are not supposed to be the aggressor. This administration has done such an effective job of selling fear of nearly everything that they can convince people to give up on American being what America is supposed to be and sell our national character down the drain. The sad thing is that there are 30% of the people out there who are more than willing to allow it to happen. Talk about appeasing tyrants.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pmI said it before.
Tracy is obviously a wedge issue voter. She only really cares enough about her pet issue. She obviously doesn't care to know enough about any other issues.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pm#104
"This is not what the Amerrican public was told. Have you forgotten Sec Rumsfeld’s famous words?"
He was basing this on intelligence reports that yes were later proved to be false.
"And by 2003, it was clear that whatever intentions Hussein might have had regarding Kuwait -or the rest of the world, for that matter- he simply didn’t have the means to carry out any of his fantasies."
How exactly was it clear in 2003?
"Not with a team of UN inspectors running around the country and making sure all non-compliant weapons found were destroyed."
Yeah those biological and chemical illegal weapons sure would be hard to keep out of sight for the HUGE U.N. inspection team. Hell we have been in Iraq for nearly nearly four years jut now have found entire MIG-25 Foxbat fighters buried in the desert of western Iraql not to mention we continually find mass graves and IED bomb making factories in Baghdad.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#122. Just how do you think Kuwait came about. For that matter what do you know about the origin of the middle east countries?
And as for your half ass answer in #121. You'll accept that the original cause for invasion was good but how it's been handled has been terrible. So you'll still stick with the idiots that keep making mistake after mistake after mistake. I just want to be clear on this. No matter what your beliefs are for the initial invasion you'll stick with this horse all the way to the glue factory.
You're going to be lonely. And Sticky.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#106
Divert? Why would you want to do that?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pmBush41: hey Saddam get out of Kuwait, we were lying about the border dispute thing. You.. Hitler.. you.
Saddam: Dude chill, this is our Manifest Destiny
Bush41: Sorry old chap - my mistake carry on.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pmAs much as I hate kicking someone when they're down, I just have to point this out:
In comment #122 Tracy sez:
But then, in comment #124, a scant two minutes later, Tracy goes on to say:
(I know...I had to read it a couple of times too...)
Tracy, doesn't the cognitive dissonance just shake the teeth out of your pointed little head?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pmBluedog49 (or anyone),
Are the correlations between Japan's failed empire expanding/ pre-emptive attack on Pearl Harbor JUST TOO EERILY similar to our situation in Iraq? I feel that the tensions in the Mid-East as a result of our bungling of foreign affairs for decades, and our subsequent disaster in Iraq COULD EASILY awaken the "Sleeping Giant" of MILLIONS OF potential Jihadists.
And if that happens, we'll ALWAYS be able to thank George "the Shrub" Bush, lamest-brainest President of them all, and those F*CKING MORONS WHO VOTED FOR HIM (not once, BUT TWICE). THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS TOO! (May you die a slow, painful death.)
January 5th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#117
"You know something I’ve never been able to figure about the The Six Day War is that if Israel was surrounded and about to be overwhelmed by an Arab military machine, how come this invasion-ready juggernaut only took six days to annhilate?"
Because the Arab military commanders were morons.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pm#118 Japan attacked Pearl because they did not want us playing in their ocean. They aspired to be an empire and in order to be an empire they needed raw materials and space. They thought that by striking at the US and driving them out of the western pacific basin that they could fortify it far enough out from their newly acquired resources that it would be too daunting for the US to remove them. Not quite the “they thought the US had WMD†argument we used to start the Iraq War.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pmTracy sez:
Tracy, every time you try to float this turd, I'm going to come along and sink it.
As I've already said, there is ample evidence that the administration knew full well that WMDs were not to be found, and that the intelligence reports were deliberately jury-rigged to support the existing policy decision of invasion.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:20 pmAnd just who wrote this part international law and who is in charge of enforcing it?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
The winners of WWII. The UN Security Council.
I would have figured that after WW2 the European would have leard that doing nothing and making concessions is not a good policy.
The UN charter was written in such a way precisely to prevent the kind of aggression Nazi Germany and Japan launched on other nations, all with phony pretexts. Don't forget Germany always acted in "self-defence", or to protect Germans who were under attack somewhere.
Although Clinton had no problem violating “international law†by taking out Milosivic.
NATO asked the US to intervene. It was a NATO-sponsored action. The US didn't act unilaterally.
Also according to international law we wouldn’t be allowed to oust the Sudanese government for their sponsoring of genocide in Darfur.
Strawman. Crimes against humanity are basis for international action, which include military intervention. This was also written so with Nazi Germany in mind.
No, that was not the case in Iraq in 2003. But it would have been justified in the late 80s.
“It is also contrary to Christian doctrine:…â€
How?
Because you cannot launch an aggression without a good justification. Doing so is sinful (you shouldn't harm your neighbors). If the aggression will take human lives, the justification better be a very good one. Is that too difficult to understand?
You don't have to take my word, the wikipedia has a good summary on Just War Theory
Who defines that aggression? To wait for an imminent attack is insane.
Are you asking me to define "is"? If the US is not willing to wait for an imminent attack, the whole world is a potential target, at anytime for anything at all. There is no need for an aggression to be in self-defence. Is that what you are advocating?
Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?
It was a preemptive ("Surprise") strike to neutralize the US fleet in the Pacific. There was no declaration of war.
Are you giving me a history test?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pmHe was basing this on intelligence reports that yes were later proved to be false.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Ah, did he use cherry-picked, non-credible reports? Who would have thought it would lead to huge, costly mistakes?
“And by 2003, it was clear that whatever intentions Hussein might have had regarding Kuwait -or the rest of the world, for that matter- he simply didn’t have the means to carry out any of his fantasies.â€
How exactly was it clear in 2003?
Are you being obtuse on purpose? Two no-fly zones, over decade of sanctions, an inspection regime... Hussein was disarmed and contained.
Even the inspectors were asking for more time to complete their work to assure Hussein's compliance with international mandates. They were destroying all weapons they found to be in non-compliance.
Yeah those biological and chemical illegal weapons sure would be hard to keep out of sight for the HUGE U.N. inspection team.
Now you are accusing the inspectors of incompetence? Of course they made surprise visits to sites suspected of WMD manufacturing. Of course they also had satellite and airplane photographs of any movements deemed suspicious.
Do you really think the inspectors walked to these sites?
Hell we have been in Iraq for nearly nearly four years jut now have found entire MIG-25 Foxbat fighters buried in the desert
MIGs are not the WMD the inspectors were looking for, nor are the IEDs. They were also not looking for mass graves.
The type of weapons the inspectors where looking for need specific facilities to be handled and manufactured. They cannot be handled just with rubber gloves in someone's kitchen. Let alone transported in a Toyota pickup truck. Don't be ridiculous.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pmI hope they remember that when the Iran vote comes up.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm#125
"We annexed parts of the southwest and Texas and took them from Mexico. Does that make us equal to Nazi Germany? "
The U.S. offically annexed Texas in 1845 after those living in this Mexican province there rebelled against the Mexican government in 1836 and declared their independence. There was also a battles fought in California and New Mexico over disputed territories.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pmThe U.S. offically annexed Texas in 1845 after those living in this Mexican province there rebelled against the Mexican government in 1836 and declared their independence. There was also a battles fought in California and New Mexico over disputed territories.
Comment by Tracy
Yes but those battles resulted in the annexation of Califonia to the US. Look it up. So do you think President Polk acted like Hitler?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:38 pmTracy one last time. The US fought a war against Mexico and annexed territories that Mexico owned. In short we killed for land. Does that make the US and President Polk like Nazi Germany and Hitler or no?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm#127
"Like my question about North Korea and what you think about GWB ignoring that problem."
How did he ignore the problem and what could he have done to stop NK from telling the UN to take a flying leap as far as those sealed off reactors were concerned?
"Or my question about your take on WMD’s."
What was your question?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:42 pmHawaii was quite the land grab too Tracy.
But you only think its wrong if someone else does it?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:42 pmI would think that, at this point, Tracy's limited stock of talking points, etc., would be depleted. Sooner or later it will just revert to the usual child's annoying question, "Why?" after every response to it. It will never actually learn from the responses, and will just start all over again on the next Iraq thread. "What a senseless waste of human life."
I'm going home--everyone have a nice weekend!
January 5th, 2007 at 3:45 pm#128
"It’s a tired old comparison, a talking point you and your idiot pundits have attempted to make without success."
As if Saddam wouldn't have used the leverage of a WMD like a nuke to exert his quest to dominate the Middle East and control it?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pmAh Manifest Destiny - a bunch of immigrants illegally enter a sovereign country, refuse to convert to the religion of the land, obey its law (slavery was outlawed) or learn its language before starting a revolution....
Welcome to Texas 1824.
Turnabout is fair play eh?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:47 pm#130
We didn't annex them we fought a war first.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:48 pmAs if Saddam wouldn’t have used the leverage of a WMD like a nuke to exert his quest to dominate the Middle East and control it?
Comment by Tracy
Well if we imagine that he would then we should have imagined the invasion and fought like with like. I can imagine a lot of things.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pm#132
Protect the constitution? LOL! Which parts!
January 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pm#130
We didn’t annex them we fought a war first.
Comment by Tracy
What the f**k? Hahahaha. That is a keeper.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:51 pmFunny how the Trolls are avoiding the "9,000 troops" thread, as they should, but continue to argue on related threads. It's all connected morons. You admit defeat by having no argument for that thread, but argue on related threads. You Trolls are fighting an uphill battle, and are losing terribly.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:51 pm"its not fascism when we do it"
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/fascism_not_us_1.jpg
Great art work at POAC.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#134
"Other people start wars, we are supposed to be the guys who end the wars."
What is wrong with trying to prevent another World War before it starts?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm# 78 - I couldn't agree more. The Dems don't really care about ending the war asap. I heard Pelosi recently saying that they would NOT go about cutting funding for the war. At least that's not what she is about. I know for some, like Kucinich, this is the 1st priority, but they aren't the party leaders. If in the first few months, the Dems don't do the things necessary to bring troops home, then forget them. Just turn off the TV and radio. Dont' bother visiting political blogs. Just forget about politics, because obviously, what you want has nothing to do with what they want. Just start voting independent out of principle, and hope others clue in.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:55 pmPlease Tracy,
Share your crystal ball with America, you can see the future.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pmArticle I Section 9 - your brownshirt is showing Tracy.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:57 pmWhat is wrong with trying to prevent another World War before it starts?
Comment by Tracy
In other words we should wage war to prevent war. {cue Twilight Zone music}
January 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pm#137
"#122. Just how do you think Kuwait came about. For that matter what do you know about the origin of the middle east countries?"
I know that Saddam considered Kuwait to be a part of Iraq.
"And as for your half ass answer in #121. You’ll accept that the original cause for invasion was good but how it’s been handled has been terrible. So you’ll still stick with the idiots that keep making mistake after mistake after mistake."
How exactly have I defended Bush's handling of the war in Iraq? I have repeatedly said that I am against how he executed this war. You however seem to think that if I support anything he does I must be in support of everything he does. Having said this are you OK with Pelosi's BS agenda for the first 100 hours?....and not even a mention of the Iraq situation?
January 5th, 2007 at 4:00 pmThe United States is changing its foreign policy to be more proactive says a famous thinktank. The US is trying to make up for the fact that it was late for the last two World Wars by being extra punctual this time.
(Satirical - Pamela Stephenson, 1979)
January 5th, 2007 at 4:00 pm#140
Where do you think our WMDs are stored? LOL! Here you go "buried". It's a figure of speech. Where do you think that Iran's secret nuclear research facilities are located?
January 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pmTracy has been smacked down at every turn. She must be lonely.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:04 pmOf course there was always the rumour that Bush told Saddam he didn’t care if Saddam took Kuwait too.
Comment by Krazny
Not a rumor
http://www.bnfp.org/neighborhood/jmoore.htm (and it can be found at other sources by googling April Gillespie.)
January 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
#141
Did you even read #101?
January 5th, 2007 at 4:08 pmTracy is a virgin.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#149 - Tracy,
January 5th, 2007 at 4:13 pmThose living in Texas who sponsered and took part in the 'rebellion' were a mini-minority of the total population. They had moved into the area primarilly from Tennessee and Kentucky. The closest modern parallel are the European Jews who moved into Palestine and expelled the rightful inhabitants.
You know something I’ve never been able to figure about the The Six Day War is that if Israel was surrounded and about to be overwhelmed by an Arab military machine, how come this invasion-ready juggernaut only took six days to annhilate?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Don't know if anyone answered this, but I think I can help you. The Israelis won because of spectacular intelligence on their part. Their main concern was Egypt. They found that as everyone was building up for war against Israel, Egyptian pilots set out every morning to patrol the skies because they expected Israel to strike at dawn. Once they got back to Egypt after finding no planes in the sky, the pilots were often back home (not just their bases, but homes) by something like 9:30 in the morning. So the Israelis attacked then and wiped out something like 90% of the Egyptian Air Force on the first strike. Even with Jordan's help they had no chance. Intelligence won that war for them.
At least, that's the way I heard the story on TV.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pmAh Wayne thanks. So this explains why Menachem Begin knew that Egypt was not ready to start a war when he said: "lets be honest with ourselves, we chose to attack them"....
January 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pmWayne A. Schneider sez:
Don't believe everything the mass-media spoon-feeds you...
January 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#168. Tracy, Do you support this conflict now or not. And as for your comment Having said this are you OK with Pelosi’s BS agenda for the first 100 hours?….and not even a mention of the Iraq situation?
you apparently didn't see any of her speeches yesterday or the letter she sent to the president.
And besides that. You sat by for 6 years with the previous congress and your going to bitch about the first 100 hours? Why don't you at least wait for 3 weeks before you attack.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pmDon’t believe everything the mass-media spoon-feeds you…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
It was on a program on The History Channel and it didn't have anything to do with Hitler or the Civil War, so I watched it.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:31 pm#146
"The UN Security Council."
And you are OK with this body to be allowed to trump the U.S. Constitution?
"NATO asked the US to intervene. It was a NATO-sponsored action. The US didn’t act unilaterally."
So NATO trumps the U.N. and international law? BTW The U.S. didn't act unilaterally with regards to Iraq. There were and still are multiple countries involved in military action in Iraq today.
"Strawman. Crimes against humanity are basis for international action, which include military intervention."
Strawman my ass. The U.N. (you know the international action committee) was against taking military action against Milosivic to remove him from power! NATO acted on it's own without U.N. approval. Yes the U.N. would have been able to send in peace keeping forces to stop their thugs from killing innocent people but they wouldn't be able to legally oust the Sudanese government from power. BTW I guess it would first have to be called "genocide" by NATO and the U.N. before military action could take place to remove the culprit, but since no one had the guts to call it that inside Iraq, military action to remove Saddam or even prevent his killings wasn't a valid option for NATO or the U.N.
"If the aggression will take human lives, the justification better be a very good one."
And who determines if the justification is a good one?
"Are you being obtuse on purpose? Two no-fly zones, over decade of sanctions, an inspection regime… Hussein was disarmed and contained."
The why didn't ALL of the intelligence reports reflect your assertion?
"You don’t have to take my word, the wikipedia has a good summary on Just War Theory"
OK I won't and I disagree with the theory.
"If the US is not willing to wait for an imminent attack, the whole world is a potential target, at anytime for anything at all. There is no need for an aggression to be in self-defence. Is that what you are advocating?"
You know that the U.S. isn't going to just attack anybody. They most definately need to be a seen threat however, waiting for that threat to build or produce something that would raise that threat is as I said before insane.
"It was a preemptive (â€Surpriseâ€) strike to neutralize the US fleet in the Pacific. There was no declaration of war."
No why did they do it? Why did they feel the need to strike against a country that had not declared war or threaten them in any way?
January 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm#163 what war did we prevent by starting a war? I am in favor of pre-emption when war is imminent i.e. Israel in 1967. However, I am not in favor of war to prevent a war and a threat that exists only in theory, and only in the theory of a very few at that. I am not in favor of a war launched to create a huge democracy laboratory to test a democracy domino theory. If the Bush Cabal really wanted to test that democracy theory, why did they not push the Saudi’s, home to a majority of the 9/11 terrorists, birth place of OBL and the source of Sunni money in Iraq as well as terror money throughout the world, to convert to democracy peacefully and use their peaceful change as the incubator for this grand design? Of wait, the war was about WMD not democracy right?
#1689 Kuwaiit did not come about because Sadaam considered it to be part of Iraq. Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Kuwait came about because the Kuwaiti’s were accused by the Iraqi’s of drilling sideways into Iraq oils fields. Kuwait came about because the US ambassador to Kuwait was asked about the dispute and was told that the US has no interest in Arab on Arab conflicts. It is not that Sadaam considered Kuwait to be part of Iraq.
#181 so you are against the US? Why do you hate our troops? Why do/did you want us to lose?
January 5th, 2007 at 4:41 pm[...] Watch Video [...]
January 5th, 2007 at 4:56 pm#44: Show us their statements then.
The final report of the U.N. weapons inspectors from May 2003 can be found here.
The inspectors found no evidence that Iraq had, or was producing, weapons of mass destruction.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pmTracy: "Having said this are you OK with Pelosi’s BS agenda for the first 100 hours?"
Stem Cell funding, raising minimum wage, making college more affordable for middle-class kids, eliminating some connections between lobbyists and legislators, implimenting 9-11 commission suggestions... The fact that you refer to this as "bs" says a lot about your values.
DieNowForPeace, I hear you and agree with the premise of your question. But, I don't think there are as many Muslims ready to die as we in the west think. The vast majority of Islam wants to live a peaceful, productive life.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pm#181: You know that the U.S. isn’t going to just attack anybody.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
They most definately need to be a seen threat however, waiting for that threat to build or produce something that would raise that threat is as I said before insane.
What if there is no threat, as with the case of Iraq? You're arguing, essentially, that we should attack any country that has the potential, one day, to become a serious threat. I can think of a dozen or more countries that have the potential to become threats. According to your logic, it would be "insane" to wait until they become threats, so we should start wars with them now. To me THAT is insane. And paranoid. And incredibly dangerous.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pmJim, Tracy asked for the info on arms inspectors. You provided it. My prediction is that she will pretend that you didn't.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pm#147
"Ah, did he use cherry-picked, non-credible reports?"
Yes that were LATER proved to be false. You can't argue this thru retroactive glasses.
"Are you being obtuse on purpose? Two no-fly zones, over decade of sanctions, an inspection regime… Hussein was disarmed and contained."
That isn't what many of the intelligence reports said in 2003.
"They were destroying all weapons they found to be in non-compliance."
Only all the weapons that they knew of.
"Now you are accusing the inspectors of incompetence?"
No.
"Of course they made surprise visits to sites suspected of WMD manufacturing."
Suprise visits? Those inspectors were not allowed to visit a facility without giving the Iraqi's advanced notice.
"MIGs are not the WMD the inspectors were looking for, nor are the IEDs. They were also not looking for mass graves. "
No? Really? I was trying to point out that if we are just now finding fighters buried in the desert that hiding chemical and biological weapons wouldn't be that hard to hide.
"The type of weapons the inspectors where looking for need specific facilities to be handled and manufactured. They cannot be handled just with rubber gloves in someone’s kitchen. Let alone transported in a Toyota pickup truck. Don’t be ridiculous."
You don't know much about biological weapons do you?
http://www.cdi.org/issues/cbw/bwc.html
January 5th, 2007 at 5:10 pmTracy: "You know that the U.S. isn’t going to just attack anybody."
Wow, that must be the mother of all strawmen.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:10 pmTracy and Mark are both right about Kuwait. The oil theivery was going on and Saddam wanted to enforce a claim which dated back to the 1961 creation of Kuwait which only British troops (in defense of BPs stake in Kuwait) stopped.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:11 pm[A]re you OK with Pelosi’s BS agenda for the first 100 hours?
Cutting interest rates for student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Check.
Passing the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations. Check.
Increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. Check.
Allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Check.
So, I believe the answer to your question is a resounding YES.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm#190: Tracy: “You know that the U.S. isn’t going to just attack anybody.â€
Wow, that must be the mother of all strawmen.
Actually, Bluedog, I believe this particular logical fallacy is known as "begging the question."
January 5th, 2007 at 5:14 pmTracy, you seem to be arguing that they have found WMD's in Iraq. The only weapons mentioned in 2003 were left-over chemical weapons from the '80s. If you are not aware of that, you need to stop watching FOX.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:15 pm#188: Jim, Tracy asked for the info on arms inspectors. You provided it. My prediction is that she will pretend that you didn’t.
Wow! You must be a master prognosticator! I think you may be right. Either that, or he/she will try to argue that a lack of evidence of WMD just further proves how crafty Saddam Hussein really was. The logic is similar to the logic the U.S. used to imprison Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II. The fact that there was no evidence that Japanese-Americans were spying for the Japanese government was cited as evidence for how sneaky they were.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:18 pmSay, Tracy, money people are worried that China will call in their chips on treasury bills and crash our economy. This could ruin our way of life at some point in the future. Should we attack China?
January 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pmTracy, North Korea is preparing another nuclear test. Should we attack them?
January 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm#189: You can’t argue this thru retroactive glasses.
How about those of us who thought the war was a mistake from the beginning? Those of us who weren't convinced that the so-called evidence of WMD's constituted a serious threat? We have a right to be angry that the Bush administration ignored those who questioned the seriousness of the Iraqi threat in the lead-up to war. And it's appropriate to investigate what evidence the administration had, how it was used, and how it was packaged to members of Congress and to the public.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:24 pmTracy, I assume you have seen halbert holmert's post. Should we attack Mexico?
January 5th, 2007 at 5:27 pm#198: Thank you for attempting to hijack this thread.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:28 pmhellinabucket sez:
Are you kidding? The neocon attack dogs were on the Dems as early as November 3rd, for crying out loud. I recall one rather odious pundit trying to make the case that now that the Dems were going to be back in power, they 'owned the Iraq war as much as the Republicans'.
Repukes are like scorpions, hellinabucket...they honestly can't help themselves.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:29 pmTracy: "You can’t argue this thru retroactive glasses."
Republicans spent $70 million in taxpayer money arguing about a 20-year old land deal called Whitewater. Can't we argue just a little about the possibility that we were lied and tricked into a shooting war?
January 5th, 2007 at 5:29 pm#200: Should we attack Mexico?
The long-awaited invasion from the south (consisting of some random bandits) has begun. I expect the bunker busters to drop on Oaxaca within the hour, or else I'm going down there myself.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:30 pm202. You are correct TripMaster Monkey, I was refering to the lack of a republican voice crying out against Iraq during the last 6 years.
Dems own Iraq as much as Bush masters the english language.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:34 pmEerie stuff: sounds like the Gleiwitz incident
Did they take over a radio station too and play mariachi band music? Did the INS find any sombreros strategically left at the scene?
January 5th, 2007 at 5:35 pmTracy sez:
Tracy,
Three times you attempted to perpetrate this lie.
Three times I have called you on it.
Three times you failed utterly to respond to me.
And now you try to float this turd a FOURTH time. Don't you remember what I told you in post #145???
You know damned well that this is true, which is why you run away like a little girl each and every time I call you on it.
We're sick of your damned lies, Tracy.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pmYes that were LATER proved to be false. You can’t argue this thru retroactive glasses.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
It was not difficult to foresee they would be found to be false, when they contradicted what the inspection teams were saying, and what the more credible CIA reports pointed to: Iraq had not produced chemical, biological weapons since the end of the First Gulf War.
“Are you being obtuse on purpose? Two no-fly zones, over decade of sanctions, an inspection regime… Hussein was disarmed and contained.â€
That isn’t what many of the intelligence reports said in 2003.
No, it's what the more credible reports were saying. All the hoopla about Hussein's WMD program contradicted the more cautious reports issued by the CIA. We all know this now, there is no point in bringing up these other "intelligence reports".
“They were destroying all weapons they found to be in non-compliance.â€
Only all the weapons that they knew of.
Duh. And they were asking for more time to make sure Hussein's regime was in compliance. The White House would have done better to listen to them.
Suprise visits? Those inspectors were not allowed to visit a facility without giving the Iraqi’s advanced notice.
You are sorely misfinformed. No wonder you still think the invasion was justified. Here, from February 2003:
Along those lines, in February alone the U.N. inspectors have paid at least a half-dozen surprise visits to installations making guidance-and-control systems. They're also inspecting sites where unmanned aircraft are developed.
UN Finds No Long-Range Iraqi Missiles
Or you can hear it from the horse's mouth:
BLIX: Well, we aren't going to tell anybody, and least of all media, where we're going in the next few days. But we will certainly -- surprise visits are everywhere, yes. We are not giving notice in advance. But the inspectors go to where they want to go, and when they arrive at the place, they tell them, "This is where we want to inspect."
Blix: 'There is a very strong power behind us'
You don’t know much about biological weapons do you?
It seems to me you know even less. The article you linked to talks about the difficulty in monitoring for biological arsenals, given the fact that the many of the essential ingredients can have dual use if the nation in question has an advanced pharmaceutical industry. That was not the case for Iraq. However, it does mention that chemical weapons are far easier to search for, given that they need nerve agent precursors for their manufacturing.
At any rate, the article does not disprove my point: To manufacture either biological or chemical weapons, special sites are needed in order to properly handle the materials and the manufacturing process. It's much like manufacturing medications: A certain degree of sterility is needed in the site where the process is taking place, if the weapons produced are going to be effective at all. You cannot "hide" the manufacturing sites.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pmAnd you are OK with this body to be allowed to trump the U.S. Constitution?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Educating you is getting tiresome.
The US, as a signatory nation of the UN charter, has agreed to abide by its laws, and rules -per the US Constitution. The UN Charter doesn't "trump" the US Constitution. It adds to it.
The why didn’t ALL of the intelligence reports reflect your assertion?
And now yo are demanding 100% certainty in everyting you do. We are talking about the more credible reports -you know, those produced by the CIA, and the weapons inspection teams....
Don't tell me you put Chalabi's claptrap at the level of "credible".
You know that the U.S. isn’t going to just attack anybody.
Actually, no, I don't.
Let's see, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. Hussein didn't have WMD. We know both administrations lied, and manufactured intelligence. To mention just two.
Me thinks the answer is more likely "yes, they will".
Why did they feel the need to strike against a country that had not declared war or threaten them in any way?
Maybe you should answer that question if you already have the answer -which I feel you do.
We can go on for hours arguing on the justification of this or that attack. Anyone can claim to have the high moral ground to launch a preemptive strike, as did Japan and Germany in WWII. This takes nothing away from the fact that preemptive strike doctrine would excuse attacks such as Pearl Harbor, or Operation Barbarossa.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:57 pmJim, as we predicted, Tracy pretended you didn't respond. That should be a lesson -- it is a waste of time to engage Tracy. She's a cultist and no amount of logical reasoning will penetrate the dogma.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:41 pmWe can add to the long list of things Tracy doesn't understand the fact that all treaty obligations entered into by the U.S. government are treated as U.S. law. Tracy, this would include the Treaty of Tripoli, which clearly states that the United States is not a christian nation.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:44 pmWell there you have it. Halfilled Helmut says Tracy one. In all caps no less. I guess all those pesky facts will just fade away because helmut head says so.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:49 pmhellinabucket sez:
Helmut's just following the example of his Lords and Masters, who are themselves following the playbook of one of their idols:
January 5th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“If I Knew Then What I Know Now”...
Shame on the Democrats for making John Kerry the ‘04 candidate. None of these people should be in office right now. This is a war we are talking about, after all. Thousands of people are dead, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. Our act...
January 5th, 2007 at 8:50 pmThink Progress should be very embarrassed for making the same mistake the MSM always makes -- saying that senators "voted for war." No, they voted for AUTHORIZATION TO GO TO WAR. Two very different things. But of course it is a lot easier to say so-and-so voted to go to war than to say "so-and-so voted to authorize the president to go to war if he determined that was necessary because it was justified and all other courses of action had been exhausted." Yes, that is longer to say. But laziness is no excuse. The MSM and now ThinkProgress has helped perpetuate this myth. Given all the excellent work TP has done to expose the abuses of the media and the distortions that others tell, it is very unfortunate to see you make such a mistake over such a serious topic. Please keep up your wonderful work, but please be a little more careful with your headlines.
January 5th, 2007 at 8:51 pmThat's why I won't sit quietly by while the likes of this administration push their lies. Herring Helmut, MA, Tracy and the rest are just pawns (willing or otherwise).
I am most appreciative for all of the posters that return with data and facts and history (such as your Goebbels quote, Trip). That is why I continue to read and post here.
The right wing dung flingers are like flies on horseshit. They don't want it to go away, they live on it while others are realizing it's shit and it's stinking up the place (read country).
January 5th, 2007 at 8:52 pm...CANCEL SOMEONE ELSES VOTE OUT HERE ON TP
Comment by halbert holmert
Knock yourself out, hal.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:12 pmheh? I liken you to a fly on shit. You, being the fly, enjoying the shit. While the rest of the world realizing it is shit and needs to be removed.
So your desire to like shit is stopping what?
Your'e lonely aren't you.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pmHalibut Homefry - if you have a better blog to go to please do. Any get your caps lock fixed. If you jerk off too much to the internet, some of the keys get stuck - so I am told.
January 5th, 2007 at 10:16 pmProtect the constitution? LOL! Which parts!
Comment by Tracy
The Bill of Rights, for one--something you Busheviks has tried very hard to ignore and tear apart. Now go back to your spelling and grammar (or, as you would write, "grammer") lessons, Mr. Cockadoodledoo.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pmShould have written "you Busheviks HAVE tried..." in #224
January 5th, 2007 at 11:25 pmThis troll is named Tracy because there’s only a trace of brains in its head.
Comment by JaneESchneider
Very funny and well-said, Jane.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmABC left out one of the Senators who could not respond: Paul Wellstone.
January 6th, 2007 at 6:25 amWell looks like it is time for 33 Senators to step down.
I wonder if some of these were included.
Quote:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.â€
Quote:
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.â€
Quote:
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.â€
Quote:
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
“There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.â€
Quote:
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.â€
Quote:
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.â€
Quote:
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.â€
Quote:
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.â€
Quote:
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.â€
Quote:
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.â€
Quote:
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
January 6th, 2007 at 10:19 amAl Gore > December 16, 1998
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…â€
#185
"implimenting 9-11 commission suggestions"
That one was not on that list of hers. Nice try.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:36 am[...] Las veces en que ocurra que un polÃtico admite haberse equivocado, aunque inevitables, habrÃan de ser las mÃnimas, para que nunca pasen cosas como éstas: Según la ABC, 33 de los 77 senadores que votaron a favor de la guerra de Irak en noviembre de 2003 ahora votarÃan en contra. Dicen que si hubieran sabido entonces lo que saben ahora, las cosas habrÃan sido distintas. Cinco de ellos afirman que la intervención militar de Irak era algo que ni siquiera debÃa haberse llevado a votación, a la vista de lo que hoy sabemos sobre los informes de inteligencia previos a la guerra. [...]
January 6th, 2007 at 10:38 am#185
“implimenting 9-11 commission suggestionsâ€
That one was not on that list of hers. Nice try.
Comment by Tracy
Actually it was, Tracy, no matter how much you try to convince us it wasn't. Try Googling "democrats first 100 hours plan" and look at some of the articles that come up. I did and I immediately found this: http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1167969325226560.xml&coll=1
You know, Tracy, it was so easy to find that out and took all of a minute from the time I read your ignorant post. If facts are unimportant to your debating "style", then I strongly urge you to go visit one of the conservative sites, where facts are an oft-ignored inconvenience. But if you want to learn something here or on any other "liberal" site, then you are going to have to learn to deal with fact-based reality. Making crap up is not considered an acceptable forensic technique.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:46 amMuy bien, pero hablamos Ingles aqui. Gracias y vaya con dios.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:49 amIT WILL BE MY HISTORICAL PLEASURE TO VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2008 AS I HAVE DONE ALL OF MY LIFE IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO CANCEL SOMEONE ELSES VOTE OUT HERE ON TP
Comment by halbert holmert
And I thought you had to be at least 18 years old to vote. BTW, it makes no sense to say that something you're planning to do twenty-two months from now will be your "historical pleasure."
January 6th, 2007 at 10:53 am#186
"What evidence do you have to support this claim?"
Are we ready to attack Cuba or Venezuela? BTW where is you evidence that we would?
"You’re arguing, essentially, that we should attack any country that has the potential, one day, to become a serious threat."
Just how much of theat should we let a country become before we decide to take action is my point. NATO's rationale for taking out Milosivic was that he was a threat to the Balkan region and under their charter that had to act, but when it came to Saddam and Iraq there was no threat. That's BS.
"According to your logic, it would be “insane†to wait until they become threats, so we should start wars with them now."
I don't think that we need to start wars with them and have never said that. There are other ways to dispose of tyrants and in the case of Iraq a weak one in a very critical part of the world presented unique opportunity to start very much needed political change in an area of the world where fanatical groups send human bombs across oceans to attack other county's civilians because they view them to infidels.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:59 am#193
No, I know that haven't. The basis of this debate however was what was known or thought to be known thru intelligence reports prior to the invasion in 2003. Many reports said Iraq had biological and chemical weapons, some speculated that they were all destroyed, but ALL of them said that there was no way to really know if all the stockpiles were destroyed. Not one report ever said that they could account for all of the liters of chemical weapons being destroyed. Even Blix couldn't.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#195
"Say, Tracy, money people are worried that China will call in their chips on treasury bills and crash our economy."
If they did that their economy would crash. Dont' be ridiculous. Why do you keep on associating "attack" with military action? There are MANY economic weapons that we could use against China if we thought they were trying to wreck our economy.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pm#196
Considering SKs proximity to NK do you think that would be wise? No. We have ways to deal with NK economically that they always start crying about when we threaten them with sanctions. Saddam had so much money he was stealing from the oil for food program that sanctions were never going to bring him to the bargining table.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:12 pm#198
"How about those of us who thought the war was a mistake from the beginning?"
In the beginning you guys were in the small minority...at least that is the way congress voted on it.
"We have a right to be angry that the Bush administration ignored those who questioned the seriousness of the Iraqi threat in the lead-up to war."
I never said you didn't. No one said you didn't have a right to voice your oppostion however those who criticized your opposition had every right to say what they said.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#199
Those who approached our national guard troops were Mexican government troops and no they didn't "overrun" them.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pm#202
"Can’t we argue just a little about the possibility that we were lied and tricked into a shooting war?"
A little?! It's been going on since 2003.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pm#206
"As I’ve already said, there is ample evidence that the administration knew full well that WMDs were not to be found, and that the intelligence reports were deliberately jury-rigged to support the existing policy decision of invasion."
That is YOUR assumption! Show us you creditable evidence then. If you mention that BS Dowing Memo again I am going to barf. Nothing in it was ever proven to be true.
"We’re sick of your damned lies, Tracy."
Refer to #230 and defend YOUR liars then.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pm#207
"...and what the more credible CIA reports pointed to:"
Cite these reports.
"And they were asking for more time to make sure Hussein’s regime was in compliance."
How much more time? You actually think that Saddam would have ever let the inspectors do their job to the full extent that need to be done?
"But the inspectors go to where they want to go, and when they arrive at the place, they tell them, “This is where we want to inspect.â€"
How much time between the inspectors jumping from site to site would you consider to be a "suprise" visit? You know and I know that the Iraqis knew which sites the U.N. inspectors were going to visit. The inspectors also were using intelligence reports (you know the ones that were late proven to be false) that listed which sites could be potential WMDs sites, i.e. they were known from the first Gulf War and monitored over throughout the 1990s, oh at least untill 1998 whe Saddam kicked them out....hmmm.
"...can have dual use if the nation in question has an advanced pharmaceutical industry. That was not the case for Iraq."
It's not necessary for a country to have an advanced pharmaceutical industry to have a bio weapons program....that is why the important word CANis in there.
"A certain degree of sterility is needed in the site where the process is taking place, if the weapons produced are going to be effective at all. You cannot “hide†the manufacturing sites."
Really? And just where do you think NK and Iran are doing their WMD reasearch other then below ground where are satellites can't look? For you to suggest these facilities have to be above ground is very ignorant on your part....or are you suggesting it? Again you don't know much about chemical and biological weapons and you certainly aren't a scientist.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n5/fire.htm
"Iraq is suspected of retaining stockpiles of weaponized anthrax and is known to use hardened bunkers extensively. Here, we consider a hypothetical cut-and-cover bunker built with 5-meter-thick walls and a roof of reinforced concrete, buried under an additional 5 meters of earth. The facility, 5 kilometers south of Baghdad, covers an area measuring 400 square meters and is 20 meters high. Built during the absence of United Nations weapons inspections, the bunker's existence became known to American intelligence through satellite imagery captured during its construction. It is believed to contain several tons of anthrax in storage barrels, though, in the absence of a continuing ground presence, this cannot be confirmed."
You do remember Clinton launching operation Desert Fox don't you? What was the point of that operation and what types of weapons were used by the U.S.?
January 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm#208
"The UN Charter doesn’t “trump†the US Constitution. It adds to it."
If the U.S. has to get approval from the U.N. Security Coucil to take action against a nation that it (i.e. the U.S. Congress for example) deams threating then the U.S. Constitution is getting trumped by the UN Charter.
That is why Clinton and NATO took action WITHOUT U.N. Security Council approval against Milosivic.
"We are talking about the more credible reports..."
And who decides their creditability?
"We know both administrations lied, and manufactured intelligence"
Where is your proof that the Bush administration "lied" and manufactured intelligence?
"Anyone can claim to have the high moral ground to launch a preemptive strike, as did Japan and Germany in WWII."
Those two countries launched preemptive strikes because they wanted to take over the world. It's in their published manifestos. Now you are going to have to admit and then prove that is what you think the U.S. was trying to achieve when it invaded Iraq in 2003, i.e. prove that the U.S. wants to take over the world.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pm#211
When did I say that the U.S. is a Christian nation?
January 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pm#224
Which right(s) in those Bill of Rights are they trying to protect? LOL!
January 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm#226
You would laugh at someone who only knows how insult other people. Low class to say the least.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm#233
My mistake, although I don't understand why house ethics and budget controls trumps the war in Iraq as far as what will be considered first.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/01/congress_kickoff.html
BTW on the 9th of January 2007 do you actually think that they will be able to debate and pass all of the 9/11 Commmission recommendations in one day? Sound like to me it's going to be a proceedural vote on whether or not to include it as part of the 110th Congress's agenda, but makes for good PR tatics.
January 6th, 2007 at 5:22 pm#244
Correction:
They weren't Mexican government troops
January 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pm#251
You would laugh at someone who only knows how insult other people. Low class to say the least.
Comment by Tracy
Hypocrticial words coming from a guy who is always LOLing on this site with what he thinks is his superior ideas. Particularly a guy who was LOLing, telling me it is bad "grammer(SIC)" to start a sentence with "As." Bad "grammer" maybe, but certainly not bad English grammar, and one has to wonder what Tracy-troll has been reading all his life if he's never seen a grammatically correct sentence that starts with "As." Extremely "low class, to say the least. "
Tracy-troll loves to dish it out but ultimately can't take it.
January 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pmWhich right(s) in those Bill of Rights are they trying to protect? LOL!
Comment by Tracy —
The answer would obviously be lost on a rigid neo-con like yourself. Oh, yes, and only you are allowed to LOL (see #251) on here, right, hypocrite?
January 6th, 2007 at 5:38 pm“implimenting(SIC) 9-11 commission suggestionsâ€
That one was not on that list of hers. Nice try.
Comment by Tracy
To Tracy-troll,
Wayne Schneider in #233 already quote an article from the Washington Post about what's on Pelosi's agenda for the first 100 hours. And below I quote from Nancy Pelosi's own website on the first 100 hours for your perusal:
"We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission."
Bad try at spin, boy.
January 6th, 2007 at 6:29 pm#255
"Hypocrticial words coming from a guy who is always LOLing on this site with what he thinks is his superior ideas."
When I LOL it's when people like yourself say one thing and do another and I don't think I need to remind you what I am talking about although you seem the have FINALLY gotten the message. Prove that I laugh at people because I think I have superior ideas.
"Extremely “low class, to say the least. â€"
Low class is when you lack a good attitude or exhibit insulting behavior not if you are knowledgeable about a particulat subject. Do you really what to compare what each of us know as far as our respective educational backgrounds are concerned? It will one of the highlights of my weekend but we will end up kicking each other's butts for a very long time. There has been many post here in which some right winger starts insulting people by calling them names, ect... but I have never, like you did, laughed along with them or encouraged them to keep it up. In fact there have been times when I actually told them to be quiet. That's low class on your part.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:42 pm#257
I have already corrected myself, but since you don't bother reading my posts relating to the subject before you made yours I won't hold you to not doing it again in the future. Please read #252 and then you can apologize, but I won't hold my breath.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:50 pmDo you really what to compare what each of us know as far as our respective educational backgrounds are concerned? It will one of the highlights of my weekend but we will end up kicking each other’s butts for a very long time. There has(SIC) been many post(SIC) here in which some right winger starts insulting people by calling them names, ect… but I have never, like you did, laughed along with them or encouraged them to keep it up. In fact there have been times when I actually told them to be quiet. That’s low class on your part.
Comment by Tracy — January 6, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Sorry, but I don't understand your first sentence "Do you really what.."). Secondly, I am not into butt-kcking. Thirdly, I am not a rightwinger nor do I start off by calling people names. Some posters here do, I admit, but I doubt if you can find posts where I start calling people names. I myself have encouraged people here to stop the infighting and name-calling. You can't keep various posters straight; you seem to think all liberals/progressives think and act alike. For your information, we don't.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:53 pmI also don't use LOL in almost every other post like you---particularly, LOLing over someone's grammatically correct sentence, as you have. You obviously don't get what a fool you made of yourself in telling me that my "grammer(SIC) sucks," when you can't even spell the word. Very low class on your part, boy.
#256
The answer the question if you THINK you are so smart.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:57 pm#259
January 6th, 2007 at 8:10 pmSorry; I didn't notice your post #252. Are you ever going to apologize for telling me that my "grammer(SIC) sucks" and LOLing over my grammatically correct use of "as" to start a sentence? Or for accusing me of starting off by insulting people on TP threads, when in fact my posts are usually written in polite, restrained language? Don't expect further apologies from me until you do, boy.
I don't care to get into a debate over the Bill of Rights with someone like you who dismisses as mere BS Pelosi's first 100-hour agenda of "stem cell funding, raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable for middle-class and lower income kids, eliminating some connections between lobbyists and legislators, implementing 9-11 commission recommendations, etc." It's not worth my time. I would suggest that you read up on them.
#261
"Sorry, but I don’t understand your first sentence..."
You seem to be acting superior and gloating about your grammar skills in every post you direct at me and I was just asking if you want to compare what we each know as far as our respective educational backgrounds were concerned. Do you want to? BTW I dropped my grammar criticism about you a LONG time ago, but you can't seem to conjure up the same courtesy....or is it maturity?
"Thirdly, I am not a rightwinger nor do I start off by calling people names. Some posters here do, I admit, but I doubt if you can find posts where I start calling people names."
But you sure go along with and compliment others when they insult other people. That is low class little girl and in effect insulting the intended target yourself, not to mention being cowardly.
"I also don’t use LOL in almost every other post like you—particularly, LOLing over someone’s grammatically correct sentence, as you have.
But you seem to enjoy going along with what you profess to dispise, i.e. insulting others.
"Very low class on your part, boy."
You don't even know what "low class" means do you? I told you what it ment, but you continually use it improperly. Why?
"For your information, we don’t."
But YOU do.
BTW....There HAS been many posts here in which some right winger starts insulting people by calling them names, ect… There is mistake in you grading teacher.
Lastly prove that I laugh at people because I think I have superior ideas. You said I do...prove it with an example.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:02 pmBTW I dropped my grammar criticism about you a LONG time ago, but you can’t seem to conjure up the same courtesy…
But you sure go along with and compliment others when they insult other people. That is low class little girl and in effect insulting the intended target yourself, not to mention being cowardly.
You don’t even know what “low class†means do you? I told you what it ment(SIC), but you continually use it improperly. Why?
Comments by Tracy
I apologized for not noticing your post #252. You never apologized for your LOLing over my supposedly bad "grammer;" you dropped only because you were proven wrong on a number of points.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:01 pmI have complimented exactly one insult that came from Jane Schneider, who is usually quite polite. I have my reasons for doing so, little boy, as she obviously did, too.
I have my definition of low class. You have yours, and I don't have to agree with it, do I, little boy?
Finally, I once asked you why you keep on trolling here, as you obviously aren't persuading anyone to your line of thinking. Your answer was something to the effect (I don't remember the precise words) that you wanted to contradict all the BS (definitely your words) on TP. That would seem to imply that you think your ideas are superior. If not, why do you keep on posting here? You aren't persuading anyone with your usually poorly spelled, often factless (ie. WWI was unprovoked; Pelosi's agenda doesn't include implementing 9/11 commission recommendations; Dukasis ran against Reagan; etc.) posts.
Finally in reply to your "But YOU do," I will borrow one of your favorite (and, of course, very eloquent) expressions: BS (or in French "caca de boeuf)!
BTW I dropped my grammar criticism about you a LONG time ago, but you can’t seem to conjure up the same courtesy…
But you sure go along with and compliment others when they insult other people. That is low class little girl and in effect insulting the intended target yourself, not to mention being cowardly.
You don’t even know what “low class†means do you? I told you what it ment(SIC), but you continually use it improperly. Why?
Comments by Tracy
I apologized for not noticing your post #252. You never apologized for your LOLing over my supposedly bad "grammer;" you dropped only because you were proven wrong on a number of points.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:01 pmI have complimented exactly one insult that came from Jane Schneider, who is usually quite polite. I have my reasons for doing so, little boy, as she obviously did, too.
I have my definition of low class. You have yours, and I don't have to agree with it, do I, little boy?
Finally, I once asked you why you keep on trolling here, as you obviously aren't persuading anyone to your line of thinking. Your answer was something to the effect (I don't remember the precise words) that you wanted to contradict all the BS (definitely your words) on TP. That would seem to imply that you think your ideas are superior. If not, why do you keep on posting here? You aren't persuading anyone with your usually poorly spelled, often factless (ie. WWI was unprovoked; Pelosi's agenda doesn't include implementing 9/11 commission recommendations; Dukasis ran against Reagan; etc.) posts.
Finally in reply to your "But YOU do," I will borrow one of your favorite (and, of course, very eloquent) expressions: BS (or in French "caca de boeuf)!
To Amanda,
I'm sorry about the double-posting above. One of my cats jumped on my desk, and I accidentally pressed the "send" button twice while trying to keep the kitty off the computer
#263 BTW….There HAS been many posts here in which some right winger starts insulting people by calling them names, ect… There is mistake in you grading teacher.
Comment by Tracy
For one who claims to have dropped criticism of my "grammer" (SIC--your spelling), you haven't given up in actuality, and again you have proven how ignorant you are. "many posts" is plural, so "there have (not "there HAS") been" is the correct form. Incredible that you claim to be a college graduate and have never heard of "there have" when followed by the plural form!
January 6th, 2007 at 11:35 pm#252
"You never apologized for your LOLing over my supposedly bad “grammer;†you dropped only because you were proven wrong on a number of points."
You are correct...I apologize. Now how about your apology. Again I don't expect you would have decency.
"I have my reasons for doing so, little boy, as she obviously did, too."
Oh, I see you don't intend to apologize as she too doesn't have the decency to do either. Typical.
"Finally, I once asked you why you keep on trolling here, as you obviously aren’t persuading anyone to your line of thinking."
I thought this blog was a place to debate ideas, but I guess I was wrong.
"Your answer was something to the effect...."
"That would seem to imply that you think your ideas are superior."
I want to challenge others ideas and point out the BS when I see it. I don't think my ideas are superior because if I did I wouldn't waste my time here.
"You have yours, and I don’t have to agree with it, do I, little boy?"
There are only two meanings and BTW the correct spelling is low-class. You forgot the hyphen....so did I but you are the one who claims to be a grammar expert.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/low-class
http://www.answers.com/topic/low-class
"Finally in reply to your “But YOU do,†I will borrow one of your favorite (and, of course, very eloquent) expressions: BS (or in French “caca de boeuf)!"
Well if you wan't to deny it I can't stop you. Shall I just disregard that fact that you do insult others by hiding behind other's insults?
When would you use "has been"? I thought that "have" is present tense and "has" is past tense.
AGAIN prove that I laugh at people because I think I have superior ideas. You said I do…prove it with an example. When I say that I am here to contradict all of the BS here at TP, that in no way implies that I think my ideas are superior.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:05 amLora answer my question in #244....please. Your first answer was pretty cowardly.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:11 am#255
Correction...don't want to catch crap from the grammar Nazi! That a joke Lora!
"Well if you want to deny it I can’t stop you. Shall I just disregard the fact that you do insult others by hiding behind other’s insults?
January 8th, 2007 at 12:15 amTracy,
January 8th, 2007 at 1:39 am"Low class" requires a hyphen when it modifies another word, such a "low-class trick;" it doesn't require a hyphen in American English when it isn't followed by a noun to modify, although British English may do this.
There was a time I took you, despite you terrible spelling, at your word that you are an architect--meaning a university graduate. After your latest ridiculous mis-attempts to "correct" my "grammer" (SIC-your spelling until recently), I no longer believe that you are a college graduate. Not that I have anything against people who haven't finished college; neither of my parents did nor any of my (older) siblings. But I don't like phony impostors, so I see no need to waste any more time on you.
Your apology comes too late and after too much proding to be meaningful, boy. As for Jane Schneider, I don't know her personally; so if you have a complaint with her, take it up yourself.
Cockadoodledoo, boy!
Ps. Tracy,
January 8th, 2007 at 1:56 am"have been" and "has been" are used in the same way, except that the former is for plural subjects, such as "We have been thinking..." or "our cat and dog have been sick lately," whereas "has been" is for a singular subject, such as "he has been studying French lately." Your ignorance of basic English grammar and spelling is astounding for one who claims to be an architect and university-educated. I really don't enjoy debating illiterates, and that's what you are, boy.
Now they tell us...shameless pukes.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:22 am#258
"....it doesn’t require a hyphen in American English when it isn’t followed by a noun to modify"
But considering you are a low-class individual I guess I should have asked if the hyphen was necessary as I originally used it.
"I no longer believe that you are a college graduate."
I NEVER believed you were one. BTW considering there were far more important things to worry about when I was getting my degree in architecture and since you don't have a clue as to what the curriculum for a masters in architecture contains, how do you possibly come to that conclusion?
"But I don’t like phony impostors, so I see no need to waste any more time on you."
Then why do you?
"Your apology comes too late and after too much proding to be meaningful, boy."
That's better the yours never comming.
"As for Jane Schneider, I don’t know her personally; so if you have a complaint with her, take it up yourself."
It's directed to you as well considering you made it a point to agree with her insult.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:21 pm"Your ignorance of basic English grammar and spelling is astounding for one who claims to be an architect and university-educated."
Considering there is a multitude of people in this blog who do not do any better of a job and in which you do reply to their bad grammar posts, then why am I the only one you rag on?
"I really don’t enjoy debating illiterates, and that’s what you are, boy"
And I don't enjoy debating low-class cowardly people such as yourself who are not capable of apologizing for insulting someone.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:30 pmTracy,
January 8th, 2007 at 8:26 pmIt was rather predictable that you would retort that you never believed I had a college degree (not to mention graduate degrees). It doesn't matter to me what you believe.
As for my knowledge about the curriculum for a Masters in Architecture, I would imagine there are some differences according to university. But for your reference, a relative by marriage has a Masters in Architecture and works as an architect. I, therefore, probably know a bit more about the curriculum than you would know about getting an advanced degree in Asian Studies.
So, as we say in Japanese, "å‹æ‰‹ã«ã—ã‚ã€é˜¿å‘†ï¼ã€€ã€€ã‚ã°ã‚ˆã€é¦¬é¹¿ã€‚â€
#263
"I, therefore, probably know a bit more about the curriculum than you would know about getting an advanced degree in Asian Studies."
You don't know it! You would have to ask your friend to find out. That's hilarious for you to try and pass off your relative's knowledge about his/her schooling curriculum as your own.
"So, as we say in Japanese, “å‹æ‰‹ã«ã—ã‚ã€é˜¿å‘†ï¼ã€€ã€€ã‚ã°ã‚ˆã€é¦¬é¹¿ã€‚"
Translate please...that of course your are going to continue to display your cowardice...again.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI'm not passing off my relative's knowledge as my own, Tracy. But I am familiar with what he studied; there's a difference, boy, even if you choose to misinterpret it according to your own fantasy.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:41 pmFor the time being, I will not translate the Japanese for you. You seem to think you're so smart and claim you went to college. You must have met someone there who studied Japanese.“å‹æ‰‹ã«ã—ã‚ã†ã€é˜¿å‘†ï¼ã€€ã€€ã‚ã°ã‚ˆã€é¦¬é¹¿ã€‚â€
#265
"But I am familiar with what he studied"
OK, here is an easy one: What were his longest and most involved class that he/she had every year that lasted the longest, what was their purpose, and why was it required? Posting in after 1 hour (no phone calls) isn't going to cut it and it was 6:42 CST when I posted this.
"For the time being, I will not translate the Japanese for you."
Why not? You claim to know how to write Japanese...that is of course you are actually cutting and pasting someone else's writing.
"You must have met someone there who studied Japanese"
No, I but one of my best friends during college was Cambodian, but I don't think that will help much. In fact everytime I asked him to teach me some lingo he denied that he knew how to speak it because he came to the U.S. in 1974 when he was 3 years old., but I have been to his house and his mother talked to him in Khmer (I think) and he responded.
January 10th, 2007 at 7:40 pmTracy,
January 10th, 2007 at 9:27 pmI just returned from a dentist's appointment. I am not going to get into making phone calls, and I'm not going to be taking quizes right now.
I rather expected you would even stoop to accusing me of cutting and pasting Japanese. If you don't want to believe my husband's nephew is an architect and that I can translate Japanese, it really does not matter to me. The proof exists in my published translations and elsewhere, and the work I keep on getting (whether you believe it or not).
Khmer is a completely different language from Japanese. As for your Cambodian friend, it is quite possible that he didn't feel that he was good enough to teach it, even though he could carry on a conversation with his mother in the language. A somewhat similar case was a friend of mine in college who was the only American-born member of a Hungarian family. She could understand and speak some basic Hungarian, but it definitely wasn't her first language like English or even up to the level of languages she studied in school.
#267
I am not going to get into making phone calls, and I’m not going to be taking quizes right now."
You shouldn't have to make phone calls considering you said you were familiar with a standard architectural college level curriculum. What exactly do you know about a college level architectural curriculum?
"I rather expected you would even stoop to accusing me of cutting and pasting Japanese."
What do you want me to think considering you won't tell me what it says in your posts. BTW what is your point in pasting Japanese considering you know I don't write or speak Japanese?
"If you don’t want to believe my husband’s nephew is an architect and that I can translate Japanese, it really does not matter to me."
I do believe you on BOTH counts, but I don't understand why you won't translate what you posted. The only thing I can't assume is that you thru out another insult and don't have the courage to say it in English.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:07 pmOkay, the first sentence says, "Think what you want"--except that there are several different levels of politeness in Japanese, and I wrote it in one of the lower--not the lowest--level. As for the rest, it is somewhat insulting but hardly at the level of some of the language I've seen here from both the right and left. I really don't feel like writing it in English.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:29 pmAs for our nephew, I know what courses he liked the most; I can't say that I remember everything in the curriculum. For your reference, I have also translated some materials into English for a Japanese architect who works internationally. If I weren't familiar (and that's not saying I'm a near expert) at all with the subject and terminology used in it, I wouldn't have been able to do a good job of it. (He was generally pleased with the translation, but it doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not.)
And what does all this prove, anyway? Architecture is a specialized subject, and so is Asian studies--not things I would expect everyone to know about in depth. Basic English grammar, and arithmetic, for example, are part of the common curriculum--or at least they were in the primary and secondary schools I attended.
Do you really want this to go on forever and ever? Let's just end it by saying that good writing (including correct spelling and grammar) is important to me; it is not so important to you (and you do have a right to your own opinion).
Hindsight is 20/20.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pm#271
"Do you really want this to go on forever and ever?
No, absolutely not.
"Let’s just end it by saying that good writing (including correct spelling and grammar) is important to me; it is not so important to you (and you do have a right to your own opinion)."
It's not as important to me when I am having a conversation back and forth in a blog. The idea exchange and debate is what should be more important (that's just my opinion), not correcting someone's spelling and grammar. If I was writing a thesis, sending an e-mail to the owner of one of my projects, or to an architectural firm that was looking to hire me, then yes I would proof read it to make sure it was correct in both spelling and grammar. BTW since spelling and grammar are that important to you, even in an informal blog like this one, make sure you put everyone else from now on under the same level of scrunity that you did for me. Having said that, be prepared to do nothing but correct grammar and spelling in just about every one of your responses.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pmI have, in fact, corrected other people's spelling and grammar, even if you haven't noticed. Among other things, I believe I was the first to point out that the poster known as Mighty Aphrodite was consistently misspelling legal terms like "breach" (as in "breach of contract") as "breech" (such as the garment called "breeches" or the "barrel of a cannon"), while claiming to be an attorney. Moreover, I could have done it a lot more to you (and other people) than I have so far. I do it only when the mood strikes me or when I get annoyed by a neo-con poster who calls people to the left of him "itiots" (SIC) while making eight spelling errors in three lines.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:15 pmSince you are usually expressing a contrary opinion here, my own advice, which you took badly, is that it would be more effective if you paid more attention to your spelling and grammar. Obviously you don't want such advice, and that is your right. I will try to refrain from giving you further advice--even when meant in a non-hostile way. Now, to quote from an old song, "Let's call the whole thing off."
#272
"Moreover, I could have done it a lot more to you (and other people) than I have so far."
But why harp on irrelevant issues? If I were to take a poll in this blog of those who feel that grammar and spelling are as important as they are to you, it would be in the single digits considering most have grammar and spelling errors of their own.
"Obviously you don’t want such advice, and that is your right."
"I will try to refrain from giving you further advice–even when meant in a non-hostile way"
I tried to give you friendly advice to "let it alone" a long time ago. You refused and in the process have dragged this conversation far longer than it need to be. This is debating blog not your own personal class in which you feel it's your obligation to point out things that never have bearing on the subject of the thread.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:04 pmIf you were to take a poll in this blog of those who agree or appreciate your comments, it would probably also be in a single digit considering that it is a liberal/progressive blog and considering the harsh remarks against you I've seen from various other posters., except for a few neo-con trolls.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:09 amYou go your way (by posting), and I will go mine (by correcting grammar/spelling occasionally when I feel it's appropriate or when I'm in the mood). Okay? ã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰ (means "goodbye"), at least here.
What a stupid survey. Hindsight is always 20/20. Here's a quote from the article, “indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now.†It's like saying, on the Superbowl, I would bet differently knowing then what i know now. How stupid is that. What a lame survey.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pmKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 7:22 pmlebanese girls
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:41 amAsian Asian Schoolgirl Asian Porn Stars
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pmHardcore Sex Sex Hardcore Hardcore Porn Videos
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pmSell M%2Cy House
Thanks for this post!
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pmAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:54 pmBad Credit Loans Personal Loan Auto Loan Calculator
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 12:39 amAsian Asian Hotties Asian School Girl
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pmPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 10:49 pmTx Retirement Living
Found your blog on yahoo - thanks for the article but i still don't get it.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 3:49 amCollege Funding Solutions
This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?
April 6th, 2008 at 8:30 pmHardcore Sex Hardcore Sex Stories Hardcore Toons
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 10:59 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm