Republican Group Ride

[Smoknbanshee]

if your not crocked going in, your crocked coming out.

chillin let me know.  might have to join ya guys.  even though I probably won't have a quad by then. 

[Anoriginal]

Its amazing how uneducated you are. Im a democrat and i support all those things except for the president dumbshit part. The problem is with you people and alot of America that have to split people into groups. I supported Bush Sr, even though Reagan nearly put us in another depression, because the person he was running against had no clue(Dukakis).

It seems more people support this dumbass JUST because he is Republican and thats just stupid. This admin will go down in history as the worst ever, because of all the lies and deceit. This war was started to finish off what daddy couldnt do, it was NEVER about 911.

So enjoy your ride boys, you guys are perfect for each other

Uneducated?  This post (combined with the post regarding WMD's and Korea) demonstrate quite well your lack of enlightenment on these issues. Lets start with your comments on Reagan and a depression.

Reagan's economic policies were solid. His trickle down path led to the boom in the late 80's and into the 90's without a doubt. Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.

Reagan's trickle down economic's program was designed to cut taxes and, over time, put more money into the hands of the average american consumer. It is based upon an old and very effective school of economic thought known as Simon Kuznets's "Law", which stands for the proven proposition that, any time a country's gross domestic profit is up, economic equality (ie.- more wealth distributed to the lower income sector) moves ahead.  Not a new theory, Adam Smith propounded the same theory in his 1776 book, "The Wealth of Nations". [Great book, you should read it.]


Next, regarding your rants about WMD's and Korea. You act as if it was only Bush and his administration that waved the WMD flag. The Democrats were right there with him and in fact provided the majority of the push to initially go into Iraq. Here's a few excerpts from liberal democrats' speeches and memos to the President prior to entering Iraq:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998



So, before you go whining and bed wetting to the rest of us, get your facts straight or find someone else to debate on your behalf at a level you can't hold. However, if you'd like to enter into a lively debate over supply side economics, Keynesianism, Says Law and the like, I am happy to oblige.

[Able]

Its amazing how uneducated you are. Im a democrat and i support all those things except for the president dumbshit part. The problem is with you people and alot of America that have to split people into groups. I supported Bush Sr, even though Reagan nearly put us in another depression, because the person he was running against had no clue(Dukakis).

It seems more people support this dumbass JUST because he is Republican and thats just stupid. This admin will go down in history as the worst ever, because of all the lies and deceit. This war was started to finish off what daddy couldnt do, it was NEVER about 911.

So enjoy your ride boys, you guys are perfect for each other

Uneducated?  This post (combined with the post regarding WMD's and Korea) demonstrate quite well your lack of enlightenment on these issues. Lets start with your comments on Reagan and a depression.

Reagan's economic policies were solid. His trickle down path led to the boom in the late 80's and into the 90's without a doubt. Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.

Reagan's trickle down economic's program was designed to cut taxes and, over time, put more money into the hands of the average american consumer. It is based upon an old and very effective school of economic thought known as Simon Kuznets's "Law", which stands for the proven proposition that, any time a country's gross domestic profit is up, economic equality (ie.- more wealth distributed to the lower income sector) moves ahead.  Not a new theory, Adam Smith propounded the same theory in his 1776 book, "The Wealth of Nations". [Great book, you should read it.]


Next, regarding your rants about WMD's and Korea. You act as if it was only Bush and his administration that waved the WMD flag. The Democrats were right there with him and in fact provided the majority of the push to initially go into Iraq. Here's a few excerpts from liberal democrats' speeches and memos to the President prior to entering Iraq:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998



So, before you go whining and bed wetting to the rest of us, get your facts straight or find someone else to debate on your behalf at a level you can't hold. However, if you'd like to enter into a lively debate over supply side economics, Keynesianism, Says Law and the like, I am happy to oblige.

Get em!    The problem with many of the people that bash Bush or Republicans in general is that they simply spit back the liberal propaganda they have been spoon fed by the media and take that is proof enough to form an opinion and take a stance. Then when prompted they are unable to back up their rhetoric since there are no facts to support them. The difference between D and R is that R's will do what is right even when it's unpopular, while D's won't do anything and use the media to be popular. I'd rather be hated for doing right than liked for doing nothing.

[SomBch]

You seem quite versed on the lead up to the war. Who supplied the information to us regarding  WMDS. and what intelligence agency was it that verified it?

[Anoriginal]

You seem quite versed on the lead up to the war. Who supplied the information to us regarding  WMDS. and what intelligence agency was it that verified it?

The same one relied upon, created by, staffed by and funded by both Democrats and Republicans. Not to mention British Intel, American Intel and experience derived from repeated UN inspections through the 90's and early 00's. During these inspections, numerous WMD's and processing facilities were destroyed despite Iraq's intentional attempts to hide the same. Make no mistake, Iraq's chemical processing ability was adept at creating weapons for use against people as demonstated in Saddam's repeated use of chemical weapons against his own people.

Next.

[yunt2ride]

Good read, Anoriginal, The only thing is that those Bush bashers will only read the top portion because its to much to read. Everyone one of them needs to read the bottom half.

[SomBch]

No , thats incorrect . There was an intelligence agency created in the defense department under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld. and it was their bad intelligence from Ahmed Chalabi that cause us to go to Iraq even after the CIA  warned them the intelligence was inaccurate.

[Anoriginal]

No , thats incorrect . There was an intelligence agency created in the defense department under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld. and it was their bad intelligence from Ahmed Chalabi that cause us to go to Iraq even after the CIA  warned them the intelligence was inaccurate.

The Cheney/Rumsfield agency was only a small part of the overall intelligence obtained and relied upon by both republicans AND democrats when entering Iraq. Chalabi's information is simply the most published and talked about by most liberals in an attempt to shake off the fact they were equally supportive of entering Iraq. British intel, UN intel, etc. all played huge parts in the determination.

You don't actually believe that the United States totally based it's decision to enter Iraq on Chalabi do you? Nobody is that miopic.

[SomBch]

who is ahmed chalabi you ask?
Chalabi is a controversial figure for many reasons. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Much of this information has turned out to be false. That, combined with the fact that Chalabi subsequently gloated about the impact that their falsifications had in an interview with the British Sunday Telegraph, led to a falling out between him and the United States.

Initially, Chalabi enjoyed cozy political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the Project for the New American Century, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle who was introduced to Chalabi by Wohlstetter in 1985. He also enjoyed considerable support among politicians and political pundits in the United States, most notably Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who held him up as a notable force for democracy in Iraq. Chalabi's opponents, on the other hand see him as a charlatan of questionable allegiance, out of touch with Iraq and with no effective power base there. [2].

Additionally, Chalabi and other members of the INC have been being investigated for fraud involving the exchange of Iraqi currency, grand theft of both national and private assets, and many other criminal charges in Iraq. On May 19, 2004 the U.S. government discontinued their regular payments to Chalabi for information he provided. Then on May 20, Iraqi police supported by U.S. soldiers raided his offices and residence, taking documents and computers, presumably to be used as evidence. A major target of the raid was Aras Habib, Chalabi's long-term director of intelligence, who controls the vast network of agents bankrolled by U.S. funding.

In June 2004, it was reported that Chalabi gave U.S. state secrets to Iran in April, including the fact that one of the United States' most valuable sources of Iranian intelligence was a broken Iranian code used by their spy services. Chalabi allegedly learned of the code through a drunk American involved in the code-breaking operation. Chalabi has denied all of the charges, and nothing has ever come of the charges nor do the Iraqi or U.S. governments currently seemed very interested in pursuing them

facts are facts , and this republican knows bs from fact!!!!

[Anoriginal]

And your point is?

Chalabi wasn't squeaky clean. So what? Using him wasn't the US government's 1st foray into these types of deals. (Remember the Carter administrations failure in Desert One?) However, this little rabbitt trail on Chalabi really doesn't change anything.

Oh, and by the way, I knew who he was. Hence my post prior to you last.

[SomBch]

Thats just plain hardheaded led by the nose kinda look at things. Regardless of your party affiliation , this is what cost us many American lives!! To discount this as frivalous is patheticly ignorant.

[Bigscrb15]

Its amazing how uneducated you are. Im a democrat and i support all those things except for the president dumbshit part. The problem is with you people and alot of America that have to split people into groups. I supported Bush Sr, even though Reagan nearly put us in another depression, because the person he was running against had no clue(Dukakis).

It seems more people support this dumbass JUST because he is Republican and thats just stupid. This admin will go down in history as the worst ever, because of all the lies and deceit. This war was started to finish off what daddy couldnt do, it was NEVER about 911.

So enjoy your ride boys, you guys are perfect for each other

Uneducated?  This post (combined with the post regarding WMD's and Korea) demonstrate quite well your lack of enlightenment on these issues. Lets start with your comments on Reagan and a depression.

Reagan's economic policies were solid. His trickle down path led to the boom in the late 80's and into the 90's without a doubt. Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.

Reagan's trickle down economic's program was designed to cut taxes and, over time, put more money into the hands of the average american consumer. It is based upon an old and very effective school of economic thought known as Simon Kuznets's "Law", which stands for the proven proposition that, any time a country's gross domestic profit is up, economic equality (ie.- more wealth distributed to the lower income sector) moves ahead.  Not a new theory, Adam Smith propounded the same theory in his 1776 book, "The Wealth of Nations". [Great book, you should read it.]


Next, regarding your rants about WMD's and Korea. You act as if it was only Bush and his administration that waved the WMD flag. The Democrats were right there with him and in fact provided the majority of the push to initially go into Iraq. Here's a few excerpts from liberal democrats' speeches and memos to the President prior to entering Iraq:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998



So, before you go whining and bed wetting to the rest of us, get your facts straight or find someone else to debate on your behalf at a level you can't hold. However, if you'd like to enter into a lively debate over supply side economics, Keynesianism, Says Law and the like, I am happy to oblige.

 

I have noticed how no one ever tries to reply to your posts Matt. I think you shut him up.

[FishaHallic]

Good post Anoriginal but can we at least agree on several things?  As stated by SomBch, Bush took all the Intel and shaped it to what he wanted, he knew some of the facts he used were wrong because the British told him so.  I don't blame GW for getting us into the war because I thought it was a good idea to go in, I blame him for not getting the job done in a timely manner.  He has fired any general that had a different opinion of his and so he did not go in with enough troops, will you at least agree on that?  The fact that we are still in Iraq is a shame and it all falls on GW desk as the Commander and Chief he is responsible would you not agree?

The problem with most Republicans and some Dems is that they toe the party line.  Just because your party takes a stand on one issue or another does not mean you have to go along, this is what is tearing up our country not liberal dems or right wing republicans, people that toe the line no matter how crooked the line is are the root cause of a lot of our problems.   I for one like some of the things the republicans do except for the abortion issue and taxes but that does not mean I will toe the line I will take each issue and evaluate my thoughts on how it should go and if your party is wrong then it's wrong that is all there is to it.   Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that GW screwed this war up and just because your a right wing republican does not mean you can't agree does it?  That being said we still need to finish the job by sending in more troops (Like 50,000 more not the 20k that we are hearing) and bring back the draft to strengthen the military so we will have enough troops to do the job next time because we know it's coming.

[SomBch]

We need a huge amount of troops to squash the insergence and break their will to fight!!The problem is we arent killing enough of them to break them!!

[SomBch]

Good post Anoriginal but can we at least agree on several things?  As stated by SomBch, Bush took all the Intel and shaped it to what he wanted, he knew some of the facts he used were wrong because the British told him so.  I don't blame GW for getting us into the war because I thought it was a good idea to go in, I blame him for not getting the job done in a timely manner.  He has fired any general that had a different opinion of his and so he did not go in with enough troops, will you at least agree on that?  The fact that we are still in Iraq is a shame and it all falls on GW desk as the Commander and Chief he is responsible would you not agree?

The problem with most Republicans and some Dems is that they toe the party line.  Just because your party takes a stand on one issue or another does not mean you have to go along, this is what is tearing up our country not liberal dems or right wing republicans, people that toe the line no matter how crooked the line is are the root cause of a lot of our problems.   I for one like some of the things the republicans do except for the abortion issue and taxes but that does not mean I will toe the line I will take each issue and evaluate my thoughts on how it should go and if your party is wrong then it's wrong that is all there is to it.   Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that GW screwed this war up and just because your a right wing republican does not mean you can't agree does it?  That being said we still need to finish the job by sending in more troops (Like 50,000 more not the 20k that we are hearing) and bring back the draft to strengthen the military so we will have enough troops to do the job next time because we know it's coming.

[greenmachine]

When & where?

Looks like this thread got hijacked just like every other thread that even touches the political arena.

[2ndtime04gt]

Its amazing how uneducated you are. Im a democrat and i support all those things except for the president dumbshit part. The problem is with you people and alot of America that have to split people into groups. I supported Bush Sr, even though Reagan nearly put us in another depression, because the person he was running against had no clue(Dukakis).

It seems more people support this dumbass JUST because he is Republican and thats just stupid. This admin will go down in history as the worst ever, because of all the lies and deceit. This war was started to finish off what daddy couldnt do, it was NEVER about 911.

So enjoy your ride boys, you guys are perfect for each other

Uneducated?  This post (combined with the post regarding WMD's and Korea) demonstrate quite well your lack of enlightenment on these issues. Lets start with your comments on Reagan and a depression.

Reagan's economic policies were solid. His trickle down path led to the boom in the late 80's and into the 90's without a doubt. Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.

Reagan's trickle down economic's program was designed to cut taxes and, over time, put more money into the hands of the average american consumer. It is based upon an old and very effective school of economic thought known as Simon Kuznets's "Law", which stands for the proven proposition that, any time a country's gross domestic profit is up, economic equality (ie.- more wealth distributed to the lower income sector) moves ahead.  Not a new theory, Adam Smith propounded the same theory in his 1776 book, "The Wealth of Nations". [Great book, you should read it.]


Next, regarding your rants about WMD's and Korea. You act as if it was only Bush and his administration that waved the WMD flag. The Democrats were right there with him and in fact provided the majority of the push to initially go into Iraq. Here's a few excerpts from liberal democrats' speeches and memos to the President prior to entering Iraq:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998



So, before you go whining and bed wetting to the rest of us, get your facts straight or find someone else to debate on your behalf at a level you can't hold. However, if you'd like to enter into a lively debate over supply side economics, Keynesianism, Says Law and the like, I am happy to oblige.

 

I have noticed how no one ever tries to reply to your posts Matt. I think you shut him up.

No, its like beating a dead horse. I just dont care anymore, we can go back and forth with facts all day for and against. Whatever. Bush is great Reps are great, Dems are tree hugging commie pinko fags and we should just bow down to the all knowing and doing Reps. Keep the war going until every last towel head is gone and then we go after them damn chincs.

[digginfool]

I have noticed how no one ever tries to reply to your posts Matt. I think you shut him up.

It's not difficult to shut them up when you speak from the platform of facts.  Too many of these boneheads here are speaking out of emotion and based upon what they've gleaned from the media or what they've heard some other 'enlightened' soul preach.  They rarely have anything to say to back up their position and usually resort to insults or condescending attitudes.  The comment made earlier regarding "Reaganomics" is mind boggling.  While very unpopular at the time, his strategy is considered brilliance in hindsight.  Why?  Because it worked.  As Anoriginal said, it laid the framework for the economic expansion that is still continuing today.  BTW, 2ndtime, why are you so 'fed up' with all the going back and forth?  You brought nothing to this thread other than proof that you are the uneducated one and are so quick to start the name calling and condescending attitude!

[bigscrub79]

No, its like beating a dead horse. I just dont care anymore, we can go back and forth with facts all day for and against. Whatever. Bush is great Reps are great, Dems are tree hugging commie pinko fags and we should just bow down to the all knowing and doing Reps. Keep the war going until every last towel head is gone and then we go after them damn chincs.

Now you are gettin the idea. All mighty whitey will control the world one day with "W" as our leader, so just go ahead and fall inline and get used to it.

Didnt you notice that SomBch responded with his thoughts and Anoriginal shot back. Thats how debates work, you state your "facts" and the opposition states theirs. I feel the same way as you, arguing with democrats is like beating a dead horse.

[greenmachine]

who is ahmed chalabi you ask?
Chalabi is a controversial figure for many reasons. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Much of this information has turned out to be false. That, combined with the fact that Chalabi subsequently gloated about the impact that their falsifications had in an interview with the British Sunday Telegraph, led to a falling out between him and the United States.

Initially, Chalabi enjoyed cozy political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the Project for the New American Century, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle who was introduced to Chalabi by Wohlstetter in 1985. He also enjoyed considerable support among politicians and political pundits in the United States, most notably Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who held him up as a notable force for democracy in Iraq. Chalabi's opponents, on the other hand see him as a charlatan of questionable allegiance, out of touch with Iraq and with no effective power base there. [2].

Additionally, Chalabi and other members of the INC have been being investigated for fraud involving the exchange of Iraqi currency, grand theft of both national and private assets, and many other criminal charges in Iraq. On May 19, 2004 the U.S. government discontinued their regular payments to Chalabi for information he provided. Then on May 20, Iraqi police supported by U.S. soldiers raided his offices and residence, taking documents and computers, presumably to be used as evidence. A major target of the raid was Aras Habib, Chalabi's long-term director of intelligence, who controls the vast network of agents bankrolled by U.S. funding.

In June 2004, it was reported that Chalabi gave U.S. state secrets to Iran in April, including the fact that one of the United States' most valuable sources of Iranian intelligence was a broken Iranian code used by their spy services. Chalabi allegedly learned of the code through a drunk American involved in the code-breaking operation. Chalabi has denied all of the charges, and nothing has ever come of the charges nor do the Iraqi or U.S. governments currently seemed very interested in pursuing them

facts are facts , and this republican knows bs from fact!!!!

There, I put it in quotes for you, it is obvious you pulled this from someone elses article, you could at least give them credit for it.

[SomBch]

copy and pasted of course , you stated the obvious! If I intend to write an  op-ed article or write a book Ill make note to self to credit my sources. But that doesnt make them less credible.

[Anoriginal]

Thats just plain hardheaded led by the nose kinda look at things. Regardless of your party affiliation , this is what cost us many American lives!! To discount this as frivalous is patheticly ignorant.

Hmm, interesting. I mean, I state facts to you regarding major issues. In response, you bring up an obscure portion of the intel relied upon for the Iraq conflict and point out it's problems in the form of an unscrupulous informant all the while dodging the actual issue. I point out the lack of impact your point makes and you respond with an audacious claim that one minor portion of the intel relied upon (Chalabi) resulted in many American lives lost.  

Nothing is frivolous about human life. However, miopic opinions that fail to consider the whole picture certainly are.

Ignorance is being oblivious to the truth. Something I am not which is clear to see by reading my posts. Stupidity is knowing the truth and failing to acknowledge it. That certainly isn't me.

[FishaHallic]

"Stupidity is knowing the truth and failing to acknowledge it. That certainly isn't me."  Or is it?

[Anoriginal]

Good post Anoriginal but can we at least agree on several things?  As stated by SomBch, Bush took all the Intel and shaped it to what he wanted, he knew some of the facts he used were wrong because the British told him so.  I don't blame GW for getting us into the war because I thought it was a good idea to go in, I blame him for not getting the job done in a timely manner.  He has fired any general that had a different opinion of his and so he did not go in with enough troops, will you at least agree on that?  The fact that we are still in Iraq is a shame and it all falls on GW desk as the Commander and Chief he is responsible would you not agree?

The problem with most Republicans and some Dems is that they toe the party line.  Just because your party takes a stand on one issue or another does not mean you have to go along, this is what is tearing up our country not liberal dems or right wing republicans, people that toe the line no matter how crooked the line is are the root cause of a lot of our problems.   I for one like some of the things the republicans do except for the abortion issue and taxes but that does not mean I will toe the line I will take each issue and evaluate my thoughts on how it should go and if your party is wrong then it's wrong that is all there is to it.   Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that GW screwed this war up and just because your a right wing republican does not mean you can't agree does it?  That being said we still need to finish the job by sending in more troops (Like 50,000 more not the 20k that we are hearing) and bring back the draft to strengthen the military so we will have enough troops to do the job next time because we know it's coming.

Blaming Bush for the alleged "mess up" in Iraq is not a well founded stance. Especially given the fact the liberals in the house and congress supported it all the way. As far as not sending in enough troops, Bush and many other conservative leaders called for a build up from the start. It was the liberal left that kept screaming "withdraw...get out" without an exit strategy. (Come on, now we all remember Lieberman, Kerry and the others flip flopping on their support for the war and screaming about pulling out our troops on an expedited basis.) So, I do not agree with your allegations about Bush not putting enough troops into Iraq as it is unsupported by fact.

Also, regarding your insinuations that I blindly toe a certain party line, here's some revelation for you.

First, I toe no line. I vote and argue based upon fact gathered from any source I can. I do my best to make sure I have a solid understanding of the facts prior to making a decision (or posting comments). Call it a product of my upbringing and a necessity of my occupation.

Second, if and when someone cares to back up their allegations with fact, I will concede a point made with no ego. Again, product of my upbringing and necessity of my profession.

Third, the draft really isn't needed. Recruitment is as steady as its ever been. We've got the troops we need and will continue to have them.

Finally, while I am conservative in my thinking I am niether hard core right wing nor am I registered Republican. Surprise, I am registered democrat and always have been. I do however always seem to vote republican due to the conservative approach taken by most republicans.

As far as your stupidity comment goes, it falls in the same slot as Sombch's ignorance comment. I've backed my comments up with fact. So, to answer your question, "Stupidity certainly does not apply to me."

Next

[SomBch]

To say that the Chalabi intel situation is obscure  is Stupid, to assume that you know every nuance of the current situation this country is in  is Ignorant.