So do all you 'enlightened' folks want us to Cut-n-Run from Iraq?

So do all you 'enlightened' folks want to Cut-n-Run from Iraq? I ask this because you keep saying the reasons for us going their were because the Bush 43 lied--If that's the case why would you want our troops to stay there? Be honest.

I've asked repeteadly for all of the 'enlightened' liberals (and those who won't admit to being a liberal but champion all their 'enlightened' politics) to provide credible evidence that Bush 43 knowingly lied to the American people to take us to war in Iraq to back up the allegation you keep making that Bush 43 knowingly did so, but I've yet to see any of you substanciate your claim with actual credible evidence. Every time I ask, it's claimed to have already been posted~If you actually have verifible proof that's credible and doesn't just spout off opinion or conjecture you should alert the national press, because they haven't been able to prove what you keep alleging and would love to talk to you.
--------------------------------------------------

Having said that, since you believe (without actual reason) that Bush 43 lied to get us into war--does that mean that you don't support our troops who are executing the Conmmander and Chief orders in Iraq?

If you don't agree with our being in Iraq, do you advocate that we Cut-n-Run? I'm asking this specifally and individually to everyone that has alleged that Bush 43 lied to get us into Iraq.

KK,

Since you are one of the loudest singers in the 'Bush lied' choir-- Do you want us to pull out Iraq immediately KK and just Cut-n-Run? It's a serious non-rhetorical question.

Please just answer the question without resorting to your usual M.O. of childish name calling and personal attacks when you can't answer a question honestly without humiliating yourself and you become frustrated and then lash out at the person who exposed you.

Sincerely,

Yourself

DanS,

You always seem to know all the answers, do you think we should Cut-n-Run from Iraq?

KK,

Why do you change the subject when your asked to provide credible proof that Bush 43 knowingly lied to the American people to take us to war in Iraq?

If you have credible proof that Bush 43 knowingly lied--POST IT !!--Otherwise admit you either don't have any evidence to back up your claim and mis-spoke or that you're just plain lying and MoveOn. :p

----------------------------------------------

After you admit you don't have any credible evidence that Bush 43 knowingly lied to take us to war--Do you think we should cut-n-run from Iraq?

Hey Rory, we'll use your f'd up logic. You prove that Bush didn't lie. Can't do it? Well then he must have lied. See how it works?

Yeah I read it--it says 'probable' not proven that he may have mis-lead investagators. It als o says that Bush 43 didn't sight the prisoner by name as a source of their information, how do you not know there are not multiple sources or those that contradict the 'probable' suggestions of that DIA memo not (CIA which is the one who breifs the president daily)?

Sen. Levin has demonstrated that he has had credibility problems in the past--It has been requested by GOP senators that he reveil the source of the leaked memo but no one ghas been yet named--maybe we'll need another investagtion.

Should we cut-n-run? No.

Should we have gone in the first place? No.

Any other questions?

The point is that by saying it's 'probable' the said detainee mis-lead investagaters (not definitively) and given the fact that Bush 43 never named the guy in the DIA memo as his source means that the DIA memo doesn't prove anything and drawing any conclusions from it would only be conjecture.


Dictionary

con·jec·ture (kən-jĕk'chər)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.

v., -tured, -tur·ing, -tures.

v.tr.
To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.


Next :p

Shhhhh! they don't like it when you do that!

KK,

You're a real profile in courage --Coming on a chat forum that is decidely left, where conservatives are out numbered at least 10 to 1 and proclaiming your self the winner of every debate whether you provide credible evidence to back up your assertion that 'Bush 43 knowingly lied to the American people to take us to war in Iraq' or not.

I know you don't like to acknowledge or recognize things unless they square nicely with your Michael Moore, Kritina Vande Huevel, Lawrance O'Donnell and Al Franken inspired reality, but you still haven't provided credble evidence that Bush 43 knowingly lied to take America to war in Iraq.

Remember Op/Ed peices from your MoveOn.orgy or HuffingtonPost E-blasts and conjecture only make emotionally charged 'enlightened' liberals like you feel good and don't actually prove anything.

So in an effort to prove you are honest when you say something like 'Bush 43 knowingly lied to take us to war in Iraq' and not just a wishfull delusional pipe dreamer like Lawrence O'Donnell and the 22 indictments you guys were so sure were coming, it's time to put up or shut up and post CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT BUSH KNOWINGLY LIED TO TAKE AMERICA TO WAR IN IRAQ.

If you can't do that it's time to admit once and for all that you either mis-spoke about Bush 43 knowingly lying to take us to war in Iraq and apologize-- Or admit that your just an angry, embittered man who's deep seated hatred of Bush (who has beat you at almost every turn) has compelled you to wish things true you can't actually prove and that you've intentionally mis-represemted the truth when you've been saying that 'Bush 43 knowingly lied to take us to war in Iraq', and hoped that if you say it enough times people will just believe you and will stop asking you to provide credible evidence to back up your assertions.

That may play well with people that are desperate to believe anything bad about Bush 43--but until you post credible evidence that he knowingly lied I'm going to point out that you (KK) are either knowingly lying yourself or that you are just delusional--which is it?

Rory, why do you put up with the abuse? The pretenders to intellect would rather call you names than consider the question. Even ms. buttermilk jumps on the wagon. I am amazed the oracles can even type they are so disturbed.
btw we are into Iraq like a sire hound earning his money with your *****. Premature separation will be painful and could well be harmful to the dogs.

I guess there is one more reason KK and Harley won't be moving to Texas to join GW when he retires:

and im sure that rory didnt believe that clinton did ANYTHING that he was "alledged" to have done or was "probable"

the difference was that most on the left were not running aqround saying that clinton did nothing, we all knew he was a womanizer.....

of course he did do nothing compared to bush and if fitzpatrick had the powers that ken starr did then the whole bush admin would be in jail

your hypocricy is defining of your character.....i guess it takes a certain amount of brain cells to change ones mind......dude. seriousely- all the evidence in the world is mounted against bush and the whole bush admin.....what is your problem with reality- ive been wrong many times and will admit it..... but you bush supporters are totally wrong and your willing to go to the grave being wrong but we will not let you folks take this whole country to the grave with you....

at this point it doesnt matter if you know how wrong you are.....because everyone else does know it...........just look at last nights elections if you need any more proof and look at bush aproval rating....

you people are so convinced that your right, that it doesnt matter to you if you DO RIGHT....the desires of the bush admin is to dismantle this country and put as much wealth as possible in the hands of the non working rich elite......

Con-mmander?
A Freudian slip?

I couldn't of said it better myself.

My good nature offered a 'truce for the night'--If you're going to quote me do it accurately--(we've been over this):

The reason I did it is because it was Sunday night, I was spent and also genuinely concerned for your welfare and state of mental health--You seem to have become compleley un-glued and increasingly caustic, mean spirited and vitriolic since that Friday a couple of weeks ago where you and Lawrance O'Donnell had been fantisizing about seeing 22 indictments handed down with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney hand-cuffed and frog-marched out of the White House didn't pan out for ya' and it turned your 'Merry Fitzmas' into a Blue Fitzmas. :p

I have had some pretty obvious political disagreements with Goharley too, but he seems to have a pretty good sense of humor and other interests in life to help keep him balanced and fairly light hearted where he doesn't take himself or those who disagree with him politically too seriously.

There's a great line in one of my all time favorite movies (the original Manchurian Candidate) where the the Soviet trained communist Chinese Hypnotist says, "Always with a sense of humor"..

Whether he's seen the movie or not, Goharley seems to inately understand the wisdom in those words.

You can continue to stroke yourself until your covered in your own sense of self-gratification because you have some allies on a forum dominated by left-leaning partisans. However, if you think because some people desperate to believe anything bad about Bush siding with you proves anything other than you're only comfortable speaking out in arenas where you're going to be well received and that some how makes you right or the self -proclaimed winner of a debate then you really are delusional.

I would have assumed you read the book, but if you haven't my reference to what makes a person a Profile in Courage was meant tongue and cheek. A profile in courage is not going along with grain or crowd and saying or doing what will be well received or even applauded in certain circles to win a person favor and popularity---A true profile in courage is going against the grain and doing or saying what you know to be right even if it's not popular in certain circles or could cause others to ridacule you.

"A profile in courage is not going along with grain or crowd and saying or doing what will be well received or even applauded in certain circles "

Although you fail to see it Rory this is you to a T. You recite the party line over and over. According to your definition some of us here are a profile in courage. Even when both Dems, Reps and fanatics such as yourself were crucifying anyone who was "un-patriotic" we stood our ground and waited for Americans to wake the F up. Now the tide has turned, Americans are waking up, and you, I am convinced, would now call yourself a Profile in Courage simply because you are now in a minority of wrong opinion.

Want a movie quote? "You can't handle the truth"

I'm sorry Stlhead--I guess you're a real Profile In Courage also, coming here where virtually everyone on the forum is left leaning too and espousing your left leaning politics.

How do you work up the courage to do it?

See KK you do not need to be invited to the circle jerk you just show up on your own and start tossing off

My mom does that too. Just cuts in and speaks for everyone.

Being the centerist I am, I wanted to add my 2-cents worth here: How about those Seahawks?

I quit watching the Sea Chickens when Chuck knox left. I ahve tuned into a few game on the radio this season and watched a few qtrs on TV. Looks like they have a great offense but the Defense looks to have a few holes. A guy like Payton manning and his two recievers would tear them appart. Not sure how the Chickens offesne would fair against the Colt defense.

I'm one of those fans that likes to watch when they are winning I think I have seen more games this year than I had since Patera was coach, seriously. Kind of a love hate thing, I'm a Tampa Bay fan too.

Boy I got a good laugh out of this thread. Everyone on this board has all of the latest top secret info. These people tell you only what they want you to know. Do any of you know that before the main ground war we were killing Alkida for five months prior. Or that their was a fusaladge of a 747 they were training terrists in. Their may not be any WMD that they WANT YOU TO KNOW OF but saddam did harbor terrists. Don't ask me how I know this, but I do. OH and the seachickins suck lol

"Their may not be any WMD that they WANT YOU TO KNOW OF but saddam did harbor terrists."

R U saying we need to invade every country whose leader is harboring terrorists??? Wow... we're going to need a few MORE good men.


"Topic: So do all you 'enlightened' folks want us to Cut-n-Run from Iraq?"

Why talk about THIS exit strategy when there could be so many that actually make sense? Just about ANY exit strategy is better than Cut-n-Run... but I would be happier knowing we have one and that we were following it. But with THIS commander in chief that is not likley to happen.

It's a girlie thing. They all breathe better thru their mouths. Ms Moo you are and will be a butt of commentary until you learn to spell and quit K'sing derriere with the psychobabbling wannabe intellectuals, some of whom never got past 6 grade based on the appearance of their posts.

Fishbear give us your exit strategy.

OK Chris, leave the Seahawks alone.

Sarcasticus, THRU is not a word.

Sard,

And what kind of wannabe are you? Apparently I'm not intellectually endowed enough to figure it out. Could it be that you're like TK, and just want to see if you can p!ss people off. Now that's a passtime for mental midgets, or the mentally disturbed. And what grade are we supposed to think you reached, based on the substance of your posts? I'm estimating that since you used "psychobabbling" you much have at least reached middle school.

Aunty M,

You're being inconsistent here. Rory seldom,if ever, posts anything of substance, yet you give him all kinds of attention. I've tried to engage him a couple times to no avail. Since he began this thread, I'm guilty too. I was ignoring it until just now.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Circle jerk time again. AM you are what is known in the porn indusrty as a fluffer. You get the boys all worked up then pass them off to the real women.

I'll weigh in on this one. Nobody seems to think that going to Afghanistan was a mistake because the country was full of obvious enemy combatants who were actually responsible for 911.

Knowing that we should not have gone to Iraq has no bearing on the fact that I do not think we should (or can) leave at this point in time. Iraq has become a staging area for terrorists; it is drawing foreign terrorists from all over the world to come fight the evil empire (us); Iraq now has more enemy combatants than Afghanistan did and we are killing and capturing far more of them than they are us; cut and run, no way.

There is a strategy in network security called a “honey pot” that operates on a similar paradigm; we put up a sacrificial node (wounded goat) and give it an important name that entices crackers (not the Appalachian type) to try to see what is on it, we then find out the opponents strategy and track them back to their location or spoofed nodes and it works.

That makes too much sense KRM. It's hard to get a conspiracy theory out of that. How does Halliburton,Dick Cheney,big oil profit?

Nobody ever denied that Saddam was a bad guy; I think if there is any conspiracy it started on an idealistic level, with some of the perpetrators being the Iraqi's who also supplied bad information, including Chalabi. Other than that, the people who sold this war have been pushing the "liberation" of Iraq for over a decade. You can get inside of their minds (a little bit) through their individual philosophies by drilling down into the website at newamericancentury.org and looking for the PDF files.

While I am not particularly fond of Halliburton’s offshore (Cayman subsidiary) dealings with Iran (and a few other things) there remains a simple fact; there are no other companies that can come in and do what they do. Who else could have, maybe Bechtel, but after the big dig in Boston I don't think they are getting many calls from the fed on multi-billion dollar contracts.

What I do know is that people will be analyzing this in war schools fifty years from now just like they do Vietnam and Korea.

FishBear the hole idea of my post was to say, You the enlightened's one don't know everything that is going on outside of your news paper and TV. You only know what they want you to. As such a gave an example did you not read the post or were you just looking for a reaction. As for attacking every country that harbors terrists? If the country who is harboring them don't feel the need to do something about it then what do you think? Should we let the take over another two or three more plains?

As for pulling out? Not a chance, we are in to deep now. However I think their is a beter chance of getting out of Iraq in a few more years then their is of Afg.

And how does that make us any different than you?

All depends on your security level and the Flag-level briefings you wish to attend.

Dan, what make's it different for me is the fact that I am over here and see it with my own two eye's then I look at the new's and their is nothing reported. How many men have you heard of in the last six months that have died in Afg? I know how many ramp side ceramonies I have attended here and the numbers don't match. Agin I say you only know what they want you to and nothing more.

OK, I'll bite as one of the "enlightened ones." I suppose I fall into the category you are trying to frame. I am not there so I do not have your perspective. Granted.

I will not go as far as being someone who knows only what "they" want me to. Yes, I did read the post. Now, I have a question for you...

Suppose that Country X is harboring terrorists. You ask what we should do when we "know" Country X is not doing anything about it. Your implication is that WE should do something about it. Now who is reacting? Whose information are you basing your decision on now? Don't you think you are just getting the info "they" (whoever they are) want you to? Is this not what got us into the Iraq mess in the first?

I think that we should turn the place into
a big glass ashtray and be done with it.

And get our troops the hell out of there.

Well if it were I making the decision to send in the military then good intel from more then one separte source would be a good start, Maybe send in a special ops team to observe the target on the ground as well. Unfortionatly with any good intel you get, unless you act now on it then it is no longer good intel. However I will never be in the position of leadership that I will be getting that sort of information so everything I hear as well as what you hear is what has been screened for the public for whatever reason. Who know's maybe AM is onto something. The pressedent may be holding something back to make himself look more sucessfull for the mid term election.

You must be desparate slag, oops, I mean stlhead. thru; (throo) long O sound. is a preposition, adverb, or adjective. Short spelling of through.
source: Websters' New World Dictionary of the American Language, second edition.

Steelie' The pursuit of good intel just gets more difficult all the time. The Left here in the States is very busy trying to destroy the Cia and Nsa. ..wonder why? They are still Ps'd about the Rosenburg barbeque.

Btw Salmog, perhaps I should call you Gulliver since you believe you are dealing with midgets.
I don't give a Rats anal orifice what you think my educational background might be. It's more than adequate for dealing with some of the wannabe pundits on the forum. Biggest task is to find the discretionary time.

Sardonicus,

Nor do I give a rat's a$$ about you. I only responded to your education level because you first mentioned it with respect to those BB members you saw fit to try and put down, rather than compose something of substance on your own and let it stand or fall on its own merit.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Your use of the word, Sincerely, reminds me of the term, sobriety, and a pic of W.C. Fields.

And your posts remind me not to expect any substantive thought from you. You either C & P articles, or you make personal insults to other posters. That makes you about as useful as Rory. At least TK engages in information exchange occasionally.

And I mean that, sincerely.

Salmo g.