...And while I agree that ordinary citizens have protested our government in foreign capitals, I'd ask you why American security should be determined by 26 year old Belgian college students, and I'd also note that these rallies have been organized by people who'd dance in the street if someone set off a tactical nuclear device in the lobby of the Monsanto corporate office. But more to the point, Terry, I'd ask: What went wrong in your education that you believe that the disapproval of China constitutes failure?
actually that wasn't a bush response....that was what some blogger that andrew sullivan apparently visits wished that bush would have said in response to the question.... the actual question was Q Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In the past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power? bush's actual bleary-eyed somewhat confused response was this... I think if you remember back prior to the resolution coming out of the United Nations last fall, I suspect you might have asked a question along those lines -- how come you can't get anybody to support your resolution. If I remember correctly, there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not we were even going to get any votes, much -- well, we'd get our own, of course. And the vote came out 15 to nothing, Terry. And I think you'll see when it's all said and done, if we have to use force, a lot of nations will be with us. You clearly named some that -- France and Germany expressed their opinions. We have a disagreement over how best to deal with Saddam Hussein. I understand that. Having said that, they're still our friends and we will deal with them as friends. We've got a lot of common interests. Our transatlantic relationships are very important. While they may disagree with how we deal with Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, there's no disagreement when it came time to vote on 1441, at least as far as France was concerned. They joined us. They said Saddam Hussein has one last chance of disarming. If they think more time will cause him to disarm, I disagree with that. He's a master at deception. He has no intention of disarming -- otherwise, we would have known. There's a lot of talk about inspectors. It really would have taken a handful of inspectors to determine whether he was disarming -- they could have showed up at a parking lot and he could have brought his weapons and destroyed them. That's not what he chose to do. Secondly, I make my decisions based upon the oath I took, the one I just described to you. I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat -- is a threat to the American people. He's a threat to people in his neighborhood. He's also a threat to the Iraqi people. One of the things we love in America is freedom. If I may, I'd like to remind you what I said at the State of the Union: liberty is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to each and every person. And that's what I believe. I believe that when we see totalitarianism, that we must deal with it. We don't have to do it always militarily. But this is a unique circumstance, because of 12 years of denial and defiance, because of terrorist connections, because of past history. I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be -- will be important for that troubled part of the world. The Iraqi people are plenty capable of governing themselves. Iraq is a sophisticated society. Iraq's got money. Iraq will provide a place where people can see that the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation. Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change, positive change. So there's a lot more at stake than just American security, and the security of people close by Saddam Hussein. Freedom is at stake, as well, and I take that very seriously. It can be found for free ar www.whitehouse.gov
I should have been clear that the answer was written by someone with a) 18 hours to think it over and b) no reservations about saying "who gives a crap what they think?" Interesting day though; I went to a lecture by a Middle East expert from Michigan who was supposedly going to do deep background on Iraq and instead did 45 minutes on why he has serious reservations about invading Iraq. Some of it was valid, some was pretty superfluous, and most everything was tainted by comments like the one questioning the intelligence of a man who says "nucler" instead of "nuclear" I sat there patiently waiting for the Q and A, because I had some serious Q's. But after 45 minutes of his spiel he concluded by saying "but then again, I don't know that we have any alternative, since the threat is real and will not go away unless someone acts" So I let it go. At least he was hionest about the fact that most of his problem is his dislike of George Bush. As is yours, hang.
IMO, that's why the Politics forum on BigSoccer is so...uninviting, I guess is the word. There's so much out-right hatred in there that no discussion is worth the time and effort to read. The majority of the posters are so over-the-top that it's disgusting. For example, I tend to agree/like more conservative (Replublican) policies (please don't ask for specifics because, unfortunately, I don't discuss them well because I'm not as informed as I should be). If you say that in the Politics forum, though, you automically hate blacks and other minorities, unyieldingly support "big business," favor tax breaks that penalize the hard working common man while benefitting your country club buddy, wish to trample of civil rights and liberties, and whatever stereotypical causes associated with the GOP. And, if you dare to take a different view point, it's not because you philosophically disagree; it's because you're too damned ignorant to see things correctly - or you're an alcoholic or drug addict. That's not discussion; that's being blinded by hatred. Screw them.
You have put it exceedingly well. As I've said many times, for most hard-core Liberals there are two sides: The right, good, moral side (ie. theirs) and the side of demonic, hate-spewing evil racist greedy animals. This makes it easy for them since it relieves them of the burden of even bothering to listen to you - you're simply evil, and thus your opinions have no merit. I still, frankly, blame the Clintons for two simple reasons: First, because I'm old enough to remember when a Liberal and I could sit in a bar for a couple hours and talk about politics, be completely opposed to each other's views, and nobody felt the need to scream, name call or stomp out. This all changed in the last ten years. But it's because Clinton had no lolicies, stood for nothing and had no agenda except gaining and holding power. So he used the useful expedient of demonizing the other side. Instead of saying "Vote for me because I stand for X, Y and Z" he said "Vote for me because if you don't the vile, immoral, rich, racist facists will come to power" He managed to convince an entire generation of Americans, along with literally 90% of the black people that there are two forces at work in America: the good and the bad. And so here we are in a country where civil discourse is literally impossible. Where any political lie or dirty deed is OK because the enemy is not just somebody with a different point of view, but a devil. The funny thing is that THEY are the people who claim they're against "hate" while in reality they themselves are spewing the only hatred I see.
Oh I definately don't like Bush. I'll say that flat out. I was rather indifferent to him before his presidency though. I was not a Gore supporter or a Clinton supporter by any means. I thought the republican led assault on Clinton was more or less a waste of money, but that didn't make me put him up on a large enormous pedestal. During the election I didn't trust Gore at all and was rather indifferent to who would win between Gore and Bush. I voted for Nader because in Indiana it's a given that the GOP will win every presidency and I thought with as ass backwards as the Democratic party had become a third party might give some hope (alas the Greens (who are also a bunch of kooks) didn't get the needed 5% for federal funds. So what over the course of the past two years has rubbed me wring the most about Bush? It would be his flaunting of faith. Stick with me here. I am a Christian, I actually consider it to be the most important part of my life (followed closely by Crew Season and Baseball ) During Bush's term I feel that he has brought his faith out to such an extent that it can only hurt already existing tensions between the east and west. The use of the word crusade initially after 9/11. The consistent mentions of a battle of good v evil. The list goes on and on, but probably the one that got under my skin the most was in the time leading up to the initial war on terrorism his mention of "you are either for us or against us." I really think Bush has done some good overall, but the conistent overt biblical references rub me very much the wrong way. I wouldn't go as far as saying he had a messianic complex cause that is harsh as can be but there is something definately wrong there. I can't say I don't belive that he has good motives, but honestly I think this man hurts teh church and current american christianity in the same way as fallwell and robertson. It depresses me more than anything else. Another man that I was not very crazy about was Kissinger. But he said something that read a while back that sticks with me. I'll paraphrase here definately, but he mentioned that people always look at states and they think that their is always right and wrong and states have to decide, but states aren't always given a right and wrong they are sometimes they are given two horrible options. That is definately what Bush is faced with now. I wouldn't choose the option that he has decided to go with regardless of public or int'l support but he has and he has absolutely stuck with it. But when the man says that he prays for peace daily it just seems farcical. It doesn't seem as though this decision has bothered the man enough, its as if he sees war as the absolute right thing to do, instead of the less horrible thing to do. I've probably explained myself pretty poorly here, I hope that it all works out and that there are as few civilian and millitary casualties as pssible as it is inevitable that this will go on Bush has alerady decided that, but as I said before I really think that as much as his public certainty has helped galvanize people for his side, I think that the lack of public hand wringing or grappling with the issue will probably cost him some votes down the road. You know more about me than you probably care to now, oh well. Fire away at my response her if ya feel the need.
So much of what you just said is purely made up that I don't know where to begin, frankly. I guess I object most to the "war doesn't seem to bother him" thesis. How absurd. If you could not see the man's pain the other night it was only because of bias. Why would he "be in favor" of war? What would be the gain for him or anybody else to kill people? What you're really saying here only proves my main thesis: that you essentially are saying he is a cold, heartless man who cares nothing for the death of his fellow human beings because, apparently, he has no morals. What a crock of crap. As for the religion thing, I'm trying very hard to recall a single time when he has mentioned a religion besides Islam since the day he took office. And please: how is "you are either with us or against us" throwing Christianity in our faces? Contrast this with the gleeful pictures, dutifully run every single stinking week, of Bill Clinton walking up the church steps with a Bible in his hand waving to the cameras. Now, this is a man who at least occasionally went straight home and committed adultery, and you had, apparently, no objection to this crass hypocrisy. And were you also troubled when Clinton was bombing the crap out of Yugoslvia? Hponestly though, what I find most offensive about your post is your concluding paragraphs. You say that Bush must be in favor of war, apparently because he enjoys dead bodies and grieving widows so much, because he hasn't engaged in enough "public hand wringing" Yet a few sentences earlier, you criticize him for admitting that he prays about the whole thing every day. Which is it here? Finally, I completely reject the simplistic notion that the choices, as you lay them out and as the left in general is laying them out, is either a) war and death or B) peace and love. Was that Lincolns choice? Roosevelts? Churchills? Wilsons? Clintons when he bombed Yugoslavia? Peace is among the greatest blessings of man and God. And I nobody needs Susan Sarandon and Sheryl Crow to clue us in on the secret that "War is, like, bad, man". We knew that. It's like the guy I saw yesterday concluded: I just don't know what the alternatiove is. Do you? Because honestly, this whole thing is just more typical left-wing garbage: bash and criticize, and tell everyone who disagrees that they are immoral and are "choosing war". But typically, you offer no alternative solution.
Have you read the Bible at all Bill? You honestly don't recognize "you are either for us or against us" as biblical imagry? You don't see him invoking Biblical imagry in almost every speech? If you really don't, fine. There is a handy chart in Newsweek, i hope that you will resist the juvinile statement of something like, "its too liberal for me to read" It's actually a pretty well laid out article that summarized some of the many concerns I've had over the past months. Also, did you really read what I wrote or just see keywords and pick them out to go onto your diatrabe (of course not fueled by hate towards liberals, cause liberal are the only ones who hate, right). I didn't criticize him for the act of praying for peace that is absurd. I state and I will continue to state that I find it a bit disingenous. The man has made up his mind for war. He knows that he does not see a peaceful solution oiut of this, he comes off as a bit of a liar. Really I have no idea why you bring Clinton on into this. Yeah, I was bothered by his bombing in eastern europe, yeah I was bothered by his adultry,. The fact that you need to bring it up shows that once again though YOU are the one, who despite your habit of criticizing people for just hating Bush, like a solid 75% of the right has never gotten over Clinton. The man has been out of office for a few years now and you bring him up whenever you can, and so do all your cronies. The left never brings up Clinton, its in the past. Its the right who is still pissed taht he ended Sr. after only one term and defeated Dole. I think Clinton was a fraud, I wouldn't defend him at all, but you wind up going back to your tired schtick lumping all those who don't agree with everything Bush says into some sorta Clinton Love Crusade, its pathetic Bill. You need to get over it, you look like a kid without a bottle. Sr, Dole, and Starr all lost, its okay move on. But everything that you actual criticize about liberals hatred towards bush is manifested 10 fold within you and your hatred for Clinton, see many liberals are able to admit when one of theirs in office screwed up. Reading your writings or anything in the mags or blogs of the day from conservative pundits would lead you to believe that Bush has not taken a wrong step since coming into office, or he has but you are just too scared to admit it. Once again you proved you didn't really read what I said. I don't think the choices are just peace and love and war and death. i acknowledged that the choice is between two difficult things here, leaving sadam in power and having his people suffer and fighting a war with next to no international backing and very questionable support at home. Should Bush and teh United States show evidence that he actually ahs WMOD and that he is an imminent threat to the US then you would see international backing. But when he answers every question with, "he's gassed his own people, he's evil, etc etc..." while showing NO CREDIBLE LINK between Iraq and Al Queda we wind up going the war alone and pretty much setting up tables for Alqueda recruitment through the middle east. Not because Iraq is with Al queda, but because rational or not they will see it as a war on Islam. Finally what does Bush have to gain from this. Pride. Pride that he did what his father and Clinton couldn't do. It's the simplest of human rewards, you seem quite familiar with it actually. Your main thesis stated here, he is a cold, heartless man who cares nothing for the death of his fellow human beings because, apparently, he has no morals. Is not at all what I was saying. But if thats your fallback position, more power to ya. You state that I made up everything I wrote, congrads, youve figured it out thats exactly what an opinion. Thats what I've shared here. You can either take it like most of the right as a personal attack on you and your president, or just an opinion of where I am coming from. Given past history it doesn't suprise me that you picked option 1 already. I don't know what the alternative is, but to go it alone or just with Britain has us more on terrorist radar than ever before. Many in Bush's cabinet probably also feel this way.
a) I have extensively read the Bible, thanks. And my question still stands. b) He has not "made up his mind for war". He appears to mean what he says about how if Saddam does not give it up that we will make him. It's called meaning what you say and having the guts to back it up. I can understand how you wouldn't recognize this after Clinton, however, who meant absolutely nothing, ever. c) The POINT, sir, is that if this were Clinton instead of Bush, you and the reat of your lefto pals would be behind him 100%. You want me to fetch up some "tough talk" quotes from 1998 to prove it? d) You make two points, both wrong: first, you have picked up very well on the left-wing rant "What about Al Queda?" The answer, as demonstrated this week with the arrest of the number two guy and the reported death of two of Bin Laden's sons in a fire fight puts the lie to all that. The hunt for OBL continues and will continue. But America did not declare war on Al Queda, or the Taliban or OBL. We decdlared war on terrorism. And everybody seemed to understand at the time, and it was VERY clearly stated, that terrorism DID NOT BEGIN WITH BIN LADEN AND IT WON"T END WITH HIM. Is this too complicated? The second is the "international backing" point, and I reject this completely. I don't care what Uganda, Swaziland, Togo, Upper Volta and/or France think about anything. Most of them would cheer lustily as America burned. But let me ask this: if the converse was true, if Yemen, Chad and the Ivory Coast thought we SHOULD go to war, would that mean we had to? How far does letting a bunch of little, nasty dictatorships decide what America can and can't do go? e) The whole "pride" thing is made-up liberal crap. There is no reason, other than YOUR bias, to think this. Cite some facts once in a while. f) You're right. You DON'T know what the alternative is. But that sure isn't stopping you or your liberal heros. Come up with what we should do INSTEAD and then we'll talk. Just bashing won't do it.
Bill, I honestly believe that you have your responses written before I even write, thats the only way I can possibly explain you not really adressing the points about his obvious biblical references and the your obsession, or what you think is my obsession with Clinton. But if you choose not to have a dialogue about that, its your choice, no skin off my back. Now to your "points"... we have taken care of a, and apparently you don't see the numerous paralells as I said before their is a cliffnotes version available for you of his references in newsweek....it'll take two minutes outta your day. read it. b. we will go to war with or without un approval. how exactly has he not made up his mind then? Oh and then your clinton point, if you read my previous post you would see I'm not a fan. Nice skim. c. No I would not be behind Clinton 100% in this, but you believe everything coulter and sullivan tells you. I was not a fan of clintons war in eastern europe and i stated that (you didn't read it). You didn't know me in 1998 and i don't have many lefto pals, in fact ,most my pals view me as too conservative. but hold on to your blatant steroetyping. It makes your argument much easier to type. In fact in 98 i was of the opinion that Clinton shoulda lost his office due to arnishing the office of the presidency. sorry pal. you didn't know me then, and you don't know my "pals" now. d. I was suprised that they caught bin ladens #2. Like I said before I belive the bushies have done some good. But as for the overall war on terrorism going well and being moral its been pretty poor for thye bushies. How can you explain no money in the budget for afganistan this year when you have no "fllerbuster" fallback. You probably can't bill. But unlike most those on the left you are unable to admit your man ever made a mistake. too bad, you are the one who looks juvenile there. Int'l backing. It isn't Togo, Uganda, and the other nations you mentioned. I see you've hung on well to the sullivan link that they'd be dancing in the street if amrica burned. How wring you are. 6 months ago america was a darling of the int'l community. people wanted to help us, they felt sorry for us. Bush's stubborn, preemptive statements of we will do this with or without your help has ruined that. And when Blair loses his next election cause of this it will not be England on our side either. But I doubt you thought that far ahead. You mention countries like Togo to cover up Bush's shortcoming cause as I hav estated, and you have not been able to prove otherwise, you blindly think all he has done is right. Until you prove otherwise I will hold to that. e.h pride. further proving my point that you think bush can do NOTHING wrong you dismiss pride as a possibility. Every leader from solomon through to present day Uniontown Ohio must wrestle with this. Unless of course they are republican, because pride in your mind is and i quote, "made up liberal crap" e. I would be for war if there were UN backing and it was met by actual conditions 1. that there would be assurance that when iraq's people were "liberated" they would not be under us millitary rule, but the us would be held responsible for the funds needed after the war, since they have proven in the past to include those funds in their budget 2. Iraq's resources were left completely for Iraq's new government to decide to do with as they please. 3. In order to keep civilian casualties at a minimum this would be a full ground war. In the modern age of technology we are not held responsible for our technology killing innocent civilians, granted in a ground war more casualties would occur but the casulaties would be men and women thaqt signed up to fight and if neccessary die for their country, and not innocent bystanders.... 4.find a definitive link between sadaam husein and alqueda. The main problem is in the past few months your boy has been so poor at presenting a case that even those who were on the fence seem to be against him now. He can't even convince mexico this is just right now. its poor. Please Bill, grow up enough to admit that your man may have made some mistakes along the way, even the Clinton tribe that you love to bash and I find hiumerous admits that he made some mistakes. Your blind allegiance to bush no matter what is just embarrasing.
hang, you ignorant slut; It isn't that I can't read your posts, don't understand your posts or am so drunk with the bile of human hatred and the lust for Iraqi blood that my brain isn't processing your points. It's just that I think you're wrong. Or more precisely, that the position of the American left on all this has nothing whatever to do with being pacifists, but rather is completely, totally, 100% politically motivated. You guys couldn't get any traction with anybody with the "George Bush wasn't elected, the Supreme Court chose him" bullcrap, so you found something new to bash the guy about. Otherwise, you'd be rather sanguine about the prospect of replacing a savage, sadistic murdering thug who has been the cause of mountains of abject human suffering. This is a man who employs people whose government ID card identifies them as professional "rapists". Doing your best to help Jacques Chirac keep this subhuman pig in power must surely be your finest hour. But as for reading, you seem to have ignored one of MY basic premises, so let me repeat myself: America did NOT declare war on Al Queda. America declared war on Terrorism. And unless you're prepared to state that when the last Al Queda member is wiped off the planet then America will be safe from acts of hate-based murder from murdering, amoral animals, then your "show me a direct link to Al Queda" comments are either disengenuous or politically motivated. Thanks for the continuous recommendation on reading "Newsweek" but let me point out that if his religious references are so obscure and unnoticed that somebody has to actually POINT THEM OUT FOR YOU then to call them in any way overt is absurd. We already HAVE UN approval. Not that I gove a crap. I'm happy that the Left has literally invented another NEW WORD to add to their vocabulary - "unilateralist". Apparently it is a term meaning "to do things in your own best interest without asking Nigeria's permission. If so, call me a "unilateralist". Tal;k about typical liberal crap: make up a freakin WORD for Christ's sake and then paste it on somebody. Textbook. You also take another page from the left-wing playbook when you claim that certain conservative writers (in this case Annie Coulter and Andrew Sullivan) write the script and we just ape it. (You forgot to include Limbaugh and Will though for shame). Another favorite liberal myth, but it's comforting to think thatg your opponents are stupid, mind numbed robots who need somebody to do their thinking for them, isn't it? You guys need a new playbook. It isn't exactly a thought originating with Sullivan that there are a lot of countries in the world that would be happy to see us suffer. Sorry you didn't noticed and thus assume that nobody else figured it out before Andrew said it. George Bush has indeed made some missteps. He'll likely make others. You and I wouldn't agree on what they were, however, so discussing them would be pretty pointless. But your constant "ooooh, you big blind baddie, you think Bush is SOOOO perfect, don't you" nonsense is embarassing and childish. It doesn't do a thing to advance your arguments. Sorry. As for your assumption that the US intends to basically colonize Iraq and run the place, that's just nonsense. While the Iraqi people will rejoice at being liberated from living in abject terror every moment of their lives subject to the whims of a sadistic lunatic, they would very quickly change their opinions if they found they were now the 51st state of the union. Are we now running Afghanistan? Do little Afghan kids now recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the morning? Of course not, and it won't be that way in Iraq, either. When our purpose is completed, we have no other business there, and nobody will be happier to leave anywhere. So all your requests for "assurances" are just more liberal propaganda; complaining in advance about something that nobody contemplates in the first place. As for your last sentence, it's the most outrageous of all, but beside the point, but I must ask anyway: just what "mistakes" is it that the "Clinton tribe" admit he made?
Granted I haven't thought this over for very long, but how does my political opinion in any way prove that I am either planning on, or in the past have given out sexual favors for money? Really that I don't understand. Perhaps its just cause I am a liberal full of hate. But if you can come up with some documents (please make em better than the forged documents of Iraq buying uranium, cauzse that made your sides argument look oh so silly) I would be intrigued to say the least. And sorry Bill, but I never called you a "unilateral" I was using the word inreference to military action, and suprisingly taking 30 seconds to go to www.dictionary.com I have seen no evidence that it is a word that the "liberals" made up. Oddly enough maybe they just haven't done as much research as you have in reference to the orgins of liberal destruction of american english vocabulary. I don't really know what "aping it" refers to. But given that your sig line is from a press blurb that appeared on Sullivan's site last week and that the first thing you quoted up top was also from Sullivans site I think its fair to say you at least read him and pass on his opinions. And you ahve also made reference to Coulter. Ah yes, but we did declare a war on terrorism global wide. A bit more than Bush could chew and bound to make him look liek a hypocrite. Let me know when we start cracking down on the IRA, or Israeli groups, or even hardline palistinean groups. I'll be waiting. But we know that at least one or two of those won't happen. Oh well. I am not a spokesman for Clintons tribe, as you ahve seemed to pass over numerous times here, you'll have to ask one of them. Like I said, I wasn't really a fan. But you continue to lump me in cause it fits in better to your rehearsed argument. As was alreadey stated I am not anti-war at all. I have stated tehre were conditions that would be met that I would say lets do this. I just disagree with you on what those reasons should be and rather then get in a discussion about what this war should look like, and what should be the end results you want to get in an argument about why the right is correct (As evidenced byu your Clinton nonsense and talking about the Supreme court electing Bush, both of which I agree with your stance on, your preaching to the choir). Sorry, Bill that just doesn't leave much room for dialogue, it gets old and stale.
Did I say you were selling your ass somewhere? Help me here. Please. Give me a clue. That's always a possibility. Documents about what? I'm completely confused now. And I don't understand about the Iraq uranium reference either - are you saying I did that? George Bush? Is there a point here? So far, this post is not up to your usual standards. No, you didn't. True enough. But when you talk about how wrong it is for us to simply do what is in our own national interest without first getting permission from France, Myanmar and Swaziland, that's exactly what you're saying. Well, for awhile I used quotes from ME, but some people complained about how "arrogant" that was, so I now use quotes from other people. As for your point, "reading" Andrew Sullivan and Annie Coulter isn't the same as "pass(ing) on" their opinions. I make up my own mind about stuff. Have for years. Ask anybody. Yes. Thank you. Well, he's taking one bite at a time, which seems to piss you off. OK. Would you mind telling me what "Israeli groups" you have in mind? This would be as opposed to "soft line" Palestinian groups, I suppose. Mind telling me who they are? As I recall, they included asking Rwanda's permission to protect ourselves, didn't they? You also wanted the US government to say they weren't going to steal Iraq's natural resources. I think, instead, that YOU ought to say what makes you think we WILL. I think you also demanded a "direct link" between Saddam Hussein and Al QUeda. I'll ignore the evidence on the subject and simply repeat that Al Queda is not the point. Terrorism is. How many ways can I say this? Or are you suggesting that this sadistic animal is NOT involved in supporting and supplying terrorist organizations? No, I never did that. My point is, rather, why the left is being hypocritical. Similar, but different
In response to your first question you zinger of a greeting two posts back was "hang, you ignorant slut;" Compassionate Conservatism at is finest. The documents about Iraq buying uranium which were found "not authentic". From the transcript right here on cnn. For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials. Bill, I would not be suprised if Saddam is funding terrorists, but what proof do we have so far. It isn't me that brought up teh Al Queda link first it was Bush and Powell saying their is a link. Ridicule all you want, as for me I would just like my president to back up his statements with cold hard facts. But since you are so positive he is funding terror orginizations, what are the orginizations and where is the proof? The Burden of proof should be on the US for a preemptive strike here.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, man. Haven't you ever heard of Saturday Night Live? One of the most famous, classic lines ever? To wit: (From the current Forbes) The new segment will be called "Clinton/Dole" (or, in alternate weeks, "Dole/Clinton") rather than "Point-Counterpoint," and it will run in the middle of the show rather than at the end. But the format will basically follow that made famous by James Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander, which last aired in 1979. Those segments are perhaps best remembered as fodder for parody on Saturday Night Live by Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin. On the late-night show, Curtin, playing Alexander, would note Kilpatrick's alarming weight gain; Ackroyd would typically address Curtin as "Jane, you ignorant slut. Here's a wav file of Ackroyd saying the FAMOUS line: http://www.wavsource.com/tv/snl2.htm But don't take my word for it. Insert "you ignorant slut" into the search engine of your choice. If you get under 10,000 references, yourcomputer is broken. You MAY be the only person on the planet who wouldn't have recognized that as a light-hearted joke. Instead you force me to read some lunatic, mewling crap about "compassionate conservatism" Not to mention the crap I'm already going to take from kk for even bothering. As for the rest, look. If you think we're going to be taking out Saddam Hussein because of some questionable documents found in Niger, great. Hit the streets with your sign and more power to you. The people already out there now are so completely ignorant (have you listened to the video I posted?) that one more piece of silliness just won't matter. HOWEVER; why don't you take a minute and review Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council from a couple weeks ago? Not only is there no mention of George Bush faking Nigerese shipping documents in the WHite House basement, but there's also some real live bad stuff there. The evidence you seek is out there, Pilgrim. You only have to look.
I think you might have jumbled your Kaisers. There is Kaiser Kraut, and then, there is the one and only Kaiser WIlhelm. I, KaiserWilhelm, will give you crap for wasting your time in the past 13 threads. (Remember, it was Kaiser WIlhelm who but not for some French taxidrivers would have taken Paris in 1914.) Ah, what could have been. I did not go to the Bill Archer thread over the weekend, and now, when I get back to work, I am treated to this. I guess the main point I will make (besides the given fact that this is a waste of time as stated in a previous thread) is this: Simple "If/Then" statement from our days of learning BASIC on a c-64: If you agreed with the UN and the Coalition war on Iraq in 1991, then you must, by logic, agree with the CONTINUATION of the war now. How do I get this statement? Simple. We agreed to a ceasefire in 1991 to save Iraq and keep the entire region from exploding. (At least that was the conventional "Wisdom" of the State Dept.) To get us to lay down our weapons, Iraq agreed to many thing. One of which was that they would disarm. Have they disarmed? HELL NO! The complete waste of time over the past 12 years has been US (The UN inspectors, etc.) checking out his lies. One after another. The agreement between Iraq and the US was for IRAQ to disarm and prove it to us. Not the other way around. How is President Bush (A term of respect, much better than Bushie, etc.....Even in my heyday, I never referred to the last President as Clinton, Clintonista, etc.) rushing to war if he has waited 12 years to FINALLY act on the agreement that was signed by Iraq? This is not a new war...it is simply finishing business. Nobody made Iraq sign the Cessasion of Hostilities in 1991. They could have taken their chances and let us continue on into Bagdad.
My apologies. I actually DO know the difference but suffered a tragic disconnect. Here, as my own apologia, is our own Frederick Wilhelm Viktor Albert of Hohenzollern Otherwise: Kaiser Bill
Being a student of history I was sure you would know of the allusion to the taxicab drivers who helped saved Paris in 1914. That, and the FEW stories I have heard of the French Resistance not putting grease in the bearings of German tanks in 1944 are the ONLY examples of French bravery I can think of.
Hmm, nice I never saw that skit. I'm quite a bit younger than you. Pretty funny stuff. The compasionate conservative comment was also written with a smirk, so don't worry too much. regards Pilgrim