bush pushed and pushed...no way his intention is going to be ruined by the will of anyone, especially the american people :thumbsup:
Printable View
bush pushed and pushed...no way his intention is going to be ruined by the will of anyone, especially the american people :thumbsup:
"the measure passed the Senate on an 80-14 vote shortly after the House voted 280-142 to back it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Markass
Can't blame Bush for the actions of the house and Senate...........but I hope ya enjoyed the song!:thumbsup:
Have a good one!:s4:
Boy, I just love Right wing spin doctors, Weekly Standard be damned. Might as well have a memo from Dickhead Cheney, Yeah, for sure it was Sadam who attacked us, LMAO, what other comics have you guys been reading. I guess if you can get a Neo-con rag to back you up then it's the god honest truth, what utter bullshit, please.
I was expecting some kind of "OMG you read the weekly standard your a fucking loser fuck you" type of close-minded reaction of the likes you gentlemen posted. As much as I may have issues with the Weekly Standard myself (along with any other publication that takes whatever side a priori), I defend my use of the excerpt I extracted from it.
I was not quoting a Weekly Standard opinion piece. I was quoting Stephen Hayes, who in turn was quoting the 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 15, which in turn was quoting Farouk al-Hijazi, who in turn was quoting... well, no one, actually, the buck stops there. There's quite a difference, I would say.
So I think it's irrational for you guys to attack the Weekly Standard when all it was doing was quoting a detained Iraqi agent. If you have - and from your ostentatious prejudice, it seems as if you do - an absolutist "Everything printed on the Weekly Standard is bullshit" attitude, if the WS ever quoted Michael Moore in one of its articles as saying that this war was illegal and pointless, then by your own logic, you'd have to say you don't believe or agree with that either, because hey, everything printed in the WS is bullshit, right? Even when it's just quoting others, these others are wrong by proxy.
Even the date printed on the cover of the publication is probably incorrect, I guess. Now that I think of it, I do believe this week's issue is dated October 18, 1992. Fucking lying neo-cons, they all are.
For the record, I am neither a neo-con, nor a "right-wing spin doctor," rather a libertarian-minded independent who believes that lately, too many Americans seem gullible enough to buy into the misinformation created and disseminated by a Democratic Party that will do anything to get in power.
which in turn was quoting Farouk al-Hijazi, ...............................................When you quote one of the Iraqis that was trying to oust Sadam, you lose any credibility, and if you can't see this war is wrong, then you lose all credibility with reasononable minds. To see the big picture you must be able to undrape the American flag from around your eyes and see The US as others see us, That is when you can develop some reasonable thinking. To not question stupidity in government is unpatriotic. Do I support the troops, Hell yeah, I also support reason and there is no coherent reason to be in Iraq. WE are there strictly for one reason OIL. To see any other reasons is to buy into the Neo-con rhetoric and place your self in lockstep with the idiotic Bush regime. If you intend to spout Neo-con rhetoric on this site be prepared to encounter stiff resistance, I myself lean towards libertarianism, but that is about as far from the current Government as one can get. To give credence to the Bush regime, is exactly opposite of libertarianism. BTW Terror is a tactic, not an organization. How can you fight a war on terror?
LOL...that shit don't fly in here anymore. We all can have intelligent debate without the insults. To tell ya the truth, it's been kind of nice to post in here since the change. Besides that, being called a democrat or republican SHOULD be bad enough.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gigliozzi
Have a good one!:s4:
We're a friendly little community here, except when we go for the literary jugular every so often. But what else do you expect when discussing politics?
After this vote, I'm throughly dissapointed with a number of ranking "beltway" politicians. Listen to your constituants, there's a reason Dem's took back Congress last election. And it certainly wasn't to keep this war going.
Several of the grassroots Dem's elected in 2006 did earn my approval, strongly rebuking this capitulation bill and those of the party who made this possible. As for Presidential front runners after this telling moment, if Gore does indeed enter the race he has my unconditional support.
I see Hillary and Obama voted NO. I can respect that with Obama since that was always his stance but what's your feelings about Hillary? In the early days of her campaign she was for going the distance over there until Obama started catching up in the polls. NOW she seems to be all for setting guidelines, pulling the troops, etc.........
How do you see it?
Have a good one!:s4:
Hillary has been a Hawk. Even though her speech explaining her vote for the invasion of Iraq seems balanced, the fact is she voted YES the first time. Now she votes No for continuing, but did it in an almost underhand nature. Leading up to the actual vote she and Obama played coy, refraining from taking a position and waiting for the vote itself to slip quietly in. Yes she voted no, but if that was her position she should have stood strong like SOME dem's and decried this bill from the beginning.
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of<br>United States Armed Forces Against IraqQuote:
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Also, she like many of the candidates on both sides she's a representitive of the establishment, those beltway politicans in tight with lobyists and the like. Career politicians are not what this country needs, but thats just an idealistic rant on my part. The system is as it is. It needs to be changed, but this isn't the post to discuss it.
I have nothing against her personally, but her very existance inspires a shocking degree of anger and hatred from the right. While I would love to have Bill back in the White House, I haven't worked through my feelings about his wife.
Then again, I wish this nonsense about "flip-flopping" would stop once and for all. Since when must a person maintain ONE course of action, regardless of the results? It's downright foolhardy. If politicicians are not allowed to revisit issues, we'll forever be trapped making the same mistakes. After all, it's not flip-floppping. It's THINKING.
IF she was to change her mind based on evidence that would be one thing but it seems her change of opinion went with the polls. So what would be her actual feelings/actions IF elected?Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
By the looks of this last vote on money for the war.......there are a few that made statements but didn't hold the course when the time come.
Have a good one!:s4: