From my point of view, this thread is relevant because if the American people are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence linking the Iraq war with terrorism based on what has been divulgded by the Bush Administration, there is no reason for him to either fess up that the truth was stretched or come out and tell us the link. He will just be re-elected.

I for one, would stand behind the president if he could demonstrate such a link. I am not a liberal who opposes war at any cost, I just don't care to be patronized. This one is too big to just pass off as protecting sources by not divulging the evidence.

Just one more thing, on "Meet the Press" Dick Cheney was asked , "considering you were once considered a deficit Hawk, shouldn't the tax cut be scaled back to pay for this war and Cheney responded, No--that would hurt economic progress."

Here's a little irony for you: Powell visited a memorial for an estimated 5,000 people killed by the evil dictator of a country that we've killed an estimated 8,000 civilians in our pursuit to liberate that country from the evil dictator.

Hmmmmmm.....

goharley, not that I doubt you, but could you link me to your source on that number??

Certainly sounds like an interesting story.

Curtis

$87 billion is enough money to build apporximately 160 new stadiums for millionaires to play games in.

BBVD,

Here is the link that I believe that Goh gets all his info from...

GoHarleys fact page

Looks like it pretty much fits?

Here's a two of many:

Iraq Body Count

Powell Visit

Pmartin - Your input is a typical neocon response to something beyond your comprehension. However, thank you for clarifying your status of relevence to this and any thread to which you contribute. Your self-exhibited intellect of a buffoon has convinced me that you have neither the sincerity nor maturity to be taken seriously.

This is when you know a thread's gone waaaay beyond any useful discussion. People forget what they've said, and then step in their own **** trying to be cute.

Here's a classic:

"Thank you for your input and calling question to ones intellect. Isn't everyone on this board a genius??? You apparently are. I am just a low down scumbag and my thoughts should not be heard right? Or is it that unless someone meets your specifications that they qualify in this debate?

Practice what you preach!! You may be old but definitely not wise!"

Then he responds to a comment that he doesn't like, but doesn't have an argument to, with a link to a page with this header:

"Welcome to the

Stupid People Pages!!!"

because he doesn't actually have anything to intelligent to say. Nice. You get all pissy and defensive when someone questions your intelligence, then you do the same thing to someone else, but with twice the malice and the subtlety of a 4x4 in the forehead.

Looks like that body count page sure is a credible source... I am suprised that they don't have little pink piggys flying around that page... Sure you aren't reading the Muslims wake up page a little to much??

muslims

That's not a biased source...

Sky.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


This is way too easy!!!

Yes pretty easy when you never have to prove or disprove anything nor offer any signs of intelligence. It's called escaping from reality.

Pmartin, that may very well be a biased source, but I don't see you caring enough about the deaths of thousands of civilians of a different faith from you to try and refute it.

What exactly are you calling easy? You mean the use of smilies as a means for "proving" you're right and someone else is wrong?

I was willing to give you a shot at intelligent discourse to prove you've earned the right to call someone ELSE stupid. I figured it was the least I could do since you were so insulted when someone else questioned your intelligence.

So far I haven't seen much proof. Can't you do better than smilies?

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=949

Also, ABC News poll shows 60% disaprove of an additional $87 billion.

And I thought most of the ers
were getting there info from the National Enquirer or the Globe.

Next target:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97472,00.html

Think this time they will provide evidence first?

Caring...That's funny...Take a look in the mirror

Saddam 400,000 deaths of innocent people in 15 years. Oh ya...Not all Muslims either..

Me and many others very glad the US had the gonads to step in and do something about it.....Priceless...or at least $87Bil

You and the few others that think " we should just sit back and wait a little longer" well, NUTZ. We waited 12 of those years. Could have saved around 300,000 lives. Would some lives be lost in the fighting...Yes. According to your way of thinking we should have just talked to Hitler about that gassing thing he was doing right?? We didn't, were there lives lost in battle there...Yes. According to your way of thinking maybe 12 more years of talking to Saddam would have saved those 8K (according to your reliable source) lives right....Don't think so. He is a bad egg and needed to be gone along with his cronies. Is the US going about it exactly the right way? I can't say for sure but at least we are doing something... And I believe that in the end when all is said and done...the people that you say I care nothing about, will be better off... Your plan will have them still dying under a ruthless dictator...

Quite ASSuming you joker you...Talk about sounding irrational and foolish....Sheesh

This is really pointless that this needs to even be explained to you... But, I guess with your superior intellect you probably still wont get it. I had to put this into laymen's terms... Will you be able understand this dribble... I tried for the last time...

I am sure with your superior investigative techniques you will be able to prove the numbers provided rather quickly...

PMartin, I have not heard anyone who has opposed Pres. Bush on this one try to make the arguement that Sadaam was not anything but a brutal dictator. I certainly feel that way. However, that was not the arguement that the Administration used to justify this war. The reasons I remember were:

Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US safety and securtiy because of WMD.

Iraq deserved to be paid back because of involvement with 9/11.

Now, I think the question on the table is why did the Administration not use the arguement that you outlined in your post. After all, it was well known that Sadaam was a brutal dictator, a devil on earth. Why didn't President Bush use that arguement? Why did his administration feel that it was necessary to use the other arguements? Arguements by their very nature required a substantial degree of risk that the "facts" would not be proven. This is the part that confounds me. I can't figure out what the game is. Oil? - possible, paying back Sadaam for what happened with his Dad? - possible. What am I missing? Do you think that the Administration had an internal arguement that they said the American people would not accept the arguement that we needed to get rid of Sadaam because he was a creep? Do you think that they thought the only way to sell this war was to scare the American public? Or do you think that they were hesitant to open the Pandora's box of removing the head of another sovereign state as justification for war? After all, that is a two way street, if N. Korea thought that the President of the US was a devil on earth and they had the power to take him out, would they be justified in doing so? My fervent hope is that you would answer no. If so, I would then ask you to examine your post again and see if you can see the Pandora's box that it opens.

Pmartin, you consistently make the same statements, over and over, and expect us to eventually agree. Has anyone ever told you that repeating the same act over and over again and expecting different results is universally accepted in the psychiatric community as neurotic behavior?

I don't take nearly as much issue with your politics as I do your belligerence, which is followed by whining because someone pulls the same act on you. As soon as someone calls bull**** on any of your comments you call them a Bush basher, a Clinton lover, a left winger, or something else equally as trite.

How do you treat the people you meet face-to-face whose views on politics differ from yours?

What if he tells you the Easter Bunny is making a special stop by your house to deliver some yummy candy?


KIDDING

No, all the whiners are being told what to think by Drudge and Coulter. Neocons don't like fact-based information - it only confuses their programming.

eddie - good questions and points. Wolfowitz admitted on "Face the Nation" (I believe) a couple months ago that the administration settled on WMDs as the reason to invade. Evidently, by his account, the administration couldn't all agree on a single reason at first.

Personally, I think the humanitarian issue is a load of bunk. I don't believe anyone could have cared any less how the Iraqi people were living 10 months ago. Americans were only concerned with the "imminent danger" they were convinced to fear. If it's truly humanitarian issues we're fighting for, there are far worse off people than Iraq.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe the Iraqi border was closed, so why didn't all those oppressed people leave? They did in '91 - why'd they go back?

I nominate DanS for funniest post of the year...

Thank you, thank you

I'll be here all the week........